Legal Opinion

Ezmirlian v. Otto

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 2, 1934No. Civ. No. 7931PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAHN, J., pro tem.

This appeal comes to ns from a judgment of nonsuit rendered in an action wherein the complaint contains two counts. The first is a cause of action for damages for alleged slander of plaintiffs’ title to lots 1 and 4 of block E of Yista Del Mar tract. The second is in the form of common count for money had and received.

Defendant based his motion for a nonsuit on the following grounds:

“1. That'the plaintiff in this action has failed to prove the existence of any malice on the part of the defendant.

”2. That the plaintiff has failed to prove the issuance of any false statement…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Coley v. HeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Rabe v. Western Union Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Minor v. BaldridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Gonzales v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Anchester v. KeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Gudger v. MantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Kirk v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Wright v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

8 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