Roger Cleveland Golf Co. v. Krane & Smith, APC
California Court of Appeal
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
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Parrish v. Latham & WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Bergstein v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.