1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.Rptr.2d
  4. 118 Cal.Rptr.2d
  5. 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 48 (2002)
 

VANZANT v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.

No. B149046.

118 Cal.Rptr.2d 48 (2002)

96 Cal.App.4th 1283

Ted L. VANZANT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven.

March 20, 2002.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ted L. Vanzant, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bryan Cave and Sheldon Eisenberg, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.

WOODS, J.

Ted L. Vanzant asserts the trial court erred in sustaining respondents' demurrer on Vanzant's complaint for malicious prosecution. The trial court concluded the complaint was barred because as a matter of law Vanzant could not demonstrate respondents lacked "probable cause" to prosecute the underlying action. As explained, we concur with the trial court's conclusion, and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases