California Court of Appeal· 2/19/1998
Pattiz v. Minye
Citations
- 61 Cal. App. 4th 822
- 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 802
- 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1231
- 98 Daily Journal DAR 1706
- 1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 135
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that a dismissal did not indicate a lack of merit where 15 it would be unfair to ascribe a lack of cooperation to a party because of a witness’s refusal to continue with a deposition due to illness
- requirements for malicious prosecution in California include a showing that the action was brought without probable cause and was initiated with malice
- requirements for malicious prosecution in California include a showing that the action was brought without probable cause and was initiated with malice
- “If the resolution of the underlying action leaves some doubt concerning plaintiff’s innocence or liability, it is not a favorable termination sufficient to allow a cause of action for malicious prosecution.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gilbert
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Daniels v. RobbinsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2010-02-24· cited 106×
- Sierra Club Foundation v. GrahamCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1999-06-10· cited 88×
- Siebel v. MittlesteadtCalifornia Supreme Court· 2007-07-16· cited 65×
- Ross v. KishCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-11-28· cited 47×
- Drummond v. DesmaraisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2009-08-18· cited 35×
- Marsh v. San Diego CountyS.D. California· 2006-05-05· cited 33×
- Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2004-01-16· cited 17×
- Nielsen v. SpencerCourt of Appeals of Utah· 2008-10-23· cited 15×
- Fetters v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-01-08· cited 15×
- Lujano v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2010-11-03· cited 10×
- Womack v. County of AmadorE.D. California· 2008-03-07· cited 9×
- Patricia Leighton v. Marc G. Lowenberg et al.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2023-02-14· cited 9×
- Collins v. City of SacramentoNinth Circuit· 2009-05-05
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1989-01-12· cited 472×
- Lackner v. LaCroixCalifornia Supreme Court· 1979-11-27· cited 155×
- Minasian v. SapseCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1978-05-10· cited 66×
- Nagy v. McBurneySupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1978-10-11· cited 55×
- Robbins v. BlecherCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1997-02-10· cited 45×
- Pender v. RadinCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-04-08· cited 42×
- Eells v. RosenblumCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1995-07-25· cited 34×
- Schrader v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-08-26· cited 21×
- De La Pena v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1986-01-23· cited 13×
- Zeavin v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1982-10-20· cited 11×
- Wroten v. LenskeCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-07-22· cited 10×
- Lumpkin v. FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1982-05-05· cited 10×
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.