Legal Opinion

C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 9, 1993No. 92-182PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JORGENSON, Judge.

C.A. Hansen Corporation and C.A. Hansen, Inc. (C.A. Hansen)1 appeal from a final judgment in a malicious prosecution action against the law firm of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A. (Wicker Smith). We affirm.

This case recurs following our determination that Hansen proved a necessary element in a malicious prosecution action by obtaining a bona fide termination of a third party complaint for indemnity and contribution filed by Wicker Smith. C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane P.A., 565 So.2d 812…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Norton v. HinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  2. Harris v. Lewis State BankDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  3. City of Pensacola v. OwensSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
  4. CENT. FLA MACH. CO., INC. v. WilliamsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Northwest Florida Home Health Agency v. MerrillDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Melford v. Kahane & Assocs.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2019
  2. Endacott v. International Hospitality, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
  3. Theresa Rivernider v. Steven H. Meyer and Stephen H. Meyer, P.A.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API