Legal Opinion
Zamos v. Stroud
California Supreme Court
Decided June 9, 2004No. S118032PublishedCited by 151 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROWN, J.
The question presented by this case is whether, assuming the other elements of the tort are established, an attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution when he commences a lawsuit properly but then continues to prosecute it after learning it is not supported by probable cause. We conclude an attorney may be held liable for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit- discovered to lack probable cause.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The instant case for malicious prosecution is based upon a lawsuit (the fraud lawsuit) brought by Patricia Brookes (Brookes)—who is named as a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Broughton v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by151 opinions
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Reid v. Google, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Estate of Tucker Ex Rel. Tucker v. InterscopeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Freeman v. SchackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
146 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.