California Supreme Court· 6/9/2004

Zamos v. Stroud

Citations

87 P.3d 802
12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54
32 Cal. 4th 958

How courts have described this case

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

‘‘[c]ontinuing an action one discovers to be baseless harms [a party] and burdens the court system just as much as initiating an action known to be baseless from the outset’’
with a similar test for initiating malicious prosecution as Hawai'i, applying the same standard to the continuation as to the initiation of a suit
“[A]n attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause.”
in the context of California’s broader statute, the party filing the anti-SLAPP motion has the initial burden of establishing that the plaintiffs claim arose from protected activity
tort of malicious prosecution is disfavored

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Other cases named Zamos v. Stroud

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Zamos v. Stroud
California Court of Appeal· 2003-09-17· cited 1×

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.