California Supreme Court· 10/31/1994

Crowley v. Katleman

Citations

881 P.2d 1083
8 Cal. 4th 666
34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 386
94 Daily Journal DAR 15357
94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8332
1994 Cal. LEXIS 5389

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that violation of a single primary right gives rise to only a single cause of action, and that where there are different types of injury, there are separate primary rights
suggesting that a plaintiff can avoid malicious prosecution liability by dropping untenable claims from a complaint that includes tenable claims, but that a plaintiff remains liable if he or she fails to amend in that manner
distinguishing between statutory compensation solely for “out-of-pocket litigation costs, including attorney fees, that directly result from the objectionable conduct;” and compensable damages in malicious prosecution actions, which include both direct and consequential harms
“[T]he violation of a single 26 primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action.”
“the primary right is simply the plaintiff's right to be free from the particular injury suffered.”
“A pleading that states the 13 violation of one primary right in two causes of action contravenes the rule against 14 ‘splitting’ a cause of action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mosk, Arabian

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

196 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.