Diemee v. Herber
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
—This is an action for damages for a malicious prosecution.-
A jury was impaneled to try the issues joined, and evidence was introduced on the part of the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant moved for a nonsuit, and it was granted. From the judgment therein given and made, and from an order refusing a new trial, this appeal is prosecuted.
The facts of the case, as they appeared in evidence, are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant got into a discussion as to whether any watch could be found in San Francisco which would run longer than a week without being wound up. The defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Hahn v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Ganea v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by15 opinions
- Esau Awabdy v. City of Adelanto Scott Burnell Ted Hartz Richard Althouse, Michael Sakamoto, Does I-X, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Wilson v. Parker, Covert & ChidesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Holliday v. HollidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Ross v. HixonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- De La Riva v. Owl Drug Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.