Paiva v. Nichols
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUFFY, J.
The absence of probable cause for bringing a prior action is an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 867 [254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498] (Sheldon Appel).) One way that a defendant can negate this element (and thereby defeat the claim) is by showing that an interim victory in the underlying case—such as the granting of a preliminary injunction in favor of the malicious prosecution defendant (the plaintiff in the prior case)— established probable cause. (Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher OrganizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
- City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio InvestmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.