Legal Opinion

Paiva v. Nichols

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 2008No. H031451PublishedCited by 48 opinions

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

  1. Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  4. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher OrganizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  4. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
  5. City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio InvestmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013

43 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