|
2389 REVIEW DENIED For purposes of malicious prosecution liability, an underlying action terminated in favor of the present plaintiff even though a similar action pending in a different court and involving a different litigant did not; a person initiating an action without a good faith belief in the essential allegations that would make the action tenable lacks probable cause; a person who initiates an action for the primary purpose of embarrassing and putting pressure on the other party and providing the media with information in the form of a fact-intensive complaint does so with malice; California's punitive damages system is constitutional.CitationSIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION v GRAHAM (Disappointed Donor) 72 CA4 1135 [See: Sheldon Appel v Albert & Oliker 47 C3 863; Bertero v National 13 C3 43; Crowley v Katleman 8 C4 66, T/AT 12/94; Sangster v Paetkau 68 CA4 151, T/AT 1/99; Axline v St John's Hosp 63 CA4 907, T/AT 6/98; Hufstedler v Superior Court 42 CA4 55, T/AT 3/96; CivC 3294; Pacific Mut v Haslip 499 US 1; Adams v Murakami 54 C3 105; Las Palmas v Las Palmas 235 CA3 1220; BMW v Gore 517 US 559]
|
|
