Legal Opinion

Smith v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1895No. 15707PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.

This is an action for malicious prosecution, the complaint alleging that defendants, maliciously and without probable cause, procured plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted upon a charge of arson before a justice of the peace; and, as a second count, charging that defendants in like manner, maliciously and without probable cause, procured and induced the district attorney of Contra Costa county to bring the same charge before the grand jury of said county with a view and purpose of having plaintiff indicted for said offense.

Plaintiff had a verdict, and from the judgment entered thereon and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Grant v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Grisby v. Clear Lake Water Works Co.California Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Jones v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Anderson v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Morehouse v. City of EverettWashington Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Runo v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Parés v. RuizSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1913
  4. McKenna v. HeinlenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Ewing v. HaywardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

17 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