Ginnie G. Davis v. Veslan Enterprises v. McGraw Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s statement in closing argument that it “boggles [his] imagination” and is “inconceivable to [him]” that the nondiverse defendant “didn’t apply his brakes on the night of the accident” was not voluntary abandonment
• noting that the nondiverse defendants “did not draw solace from the alleged abandonment of claims against them” and instead “continued to attempt to reach a settlement with [plaintiff]”
• noting that “[e]ven assuming the persuasive value of the Heniford opinion—a question this Court need not reach here—plaintiff[’s] arguments to the jury plainly failed to create the abandonment of claims against the [non-diverse] defendants”
• “[P]robable cause is an absolute defense to malicious prosecution.”
• pre-amendment case employing subjective “bad faith” analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).