Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
1147 REVIEW DENIED If facts exist that would have led a reasonable attorney to think that a claim was tenable, the attorney who asserted that claim on behalf of a client had probable cause to do so and is not liable for malicious prosecution, regardless of whether s/he was aware of those facts when asserting the claim.CitationHUFSTEDLER v SUPERIOR COURT (Objective Probable Cause) 42 CA4 55 [See: Sheldon Appel v Albert 47 C3 863; Slater v Durchfort, T/AT 7/95] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||