Legal Opinion

Levy v. Brannan

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 2,049PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from the District Court ofthe-Fourth- District, City and County of San Francisco». The- case is stated in the opiuiou,

1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.

The Court refused to instruct the jury, at the request of defendant, that “malice, actual, must be provéd by the ■plaintiff;” and in this the Court, in our opinion, erred.Malice is a fact to be found by the jury in an action for malicious prosecution. It may be proven by the acts or declarations of the defendant, in respect to the prosecution, or the matter which was made the subject of the criminal charge against the plaintiff, or it may be inferred by. the jury from the want of probable cause. The want of .probable cause does not raise a legal presumption of malice, but it may be inferred…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Potter v. SealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  2. Bulkeley v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Richter v. NeilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  2. El Reno Gas & Electric Co. v. SpurgeonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  3. Griswold v. GriswoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Swat-Fame, Inc. v. GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Lester Ammondson v. Northwestern CoMontana Supreme Court · 2009

19 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