- Home
- Bios
- Try Us Free
- Subscribe
- Case Library
- CA Evidence
Discovery
Civ-Pro - Torts
- SLAPPS
- Text Summaries
- Search
- Support
Case Summary |
|
2185 REVIEW DENIED A claimant who had reason to believe that her employee participated with a vendor in deceiving the employer by advising the vendor to disguise his fee by increasing his mark-up, had probable cause to assert a claim for fraud against the employee and was not liable for malicious prosecution.CitationSANGSTER v PAETKAU (Equestrian Programs) 68 CA4 151 [See: Sheldon Appel v Albert 47 C3 863; Hufstedler v Superior Court 42 CA4 55, T/AT 3/96] |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||