Yucca Ford, Inc. v. Scarsella
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOOD, Chief Judge.
The jury returned a verdict for Scarsella on his counterclaim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs’ appeal raises questions as to: (1) determination of probable cause by the trial court; (2) evidence as to probable cause; (3) excessive damages.
Determination of probable cause by the trial court.
The elements to be proved in an action for malicious prosecution are stated in Meraz v. Valencia et al., 28 N.M. 174, 210 P. 225 (1922). One of the elements, to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, is “that no probable cause existed for the prosecution.” Meraz v.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dahl v. TurnerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- Garcia v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- Sweitzer v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- Montgomery Ward v. LarragoiteNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1970
- Brown v. Village of DemingNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Mendoza v. K-Mart, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
- Benavidez v. ShutivaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2015
- Luevano v. Group OneNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
- Western States Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Sandia Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1990
- Dawley v. La Puerta Architectural Antiques, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.