Legal Opinion

Roger Cleveland Golf Co. v. Krane & Smith, APC

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 15, 2014No. B237424, B239375PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ALDRICH, J.

In this case, we address the applicable statute of limitations when an attorney is sued for malicious prosecution. Almost 13 months after the resolution in the trial court of Sportsmark Trading, Ltd. v. Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2007, No. BC365228) (the Sportsmark action), Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. (RCG), the defendant therein, filed a malicious prosecution action against Sportsmark Trading, Ltd. (Sportsmark), 1 and Sportsmark’s attorneys, Krane & Smith, LLC, Marc Smith, Esq., and Ralph C. Loeb, Esq. (collectively, Attorneys). In…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Parrish v. Latham & WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API