Mccubbrey v. Veninga

Good Law
39 F.3d 1054·94 Daily Journal DAR 15836·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 31185·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8552
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 9, 199493-15579California1,192 words

Opinion

Opinion

39 F.3d 1054 J. Bruce McCUBBREY, Donald L. Bartels, Virginia H. Meyer, Calvin B. Ward, and McCubbrey, Bartels, Meyer & Ward, a California partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dolores M. VENINGA, George Hook and McBride, Baker & Coles, an Illinois partnership, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15579. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1994. Decided Nov. 9, 1994. 1 Frederick A. Cone, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants. 2 Jesse F. Ruiz, Robinson and Wood, San Jose, CA, for defendants-appellees. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 4 Before: CHOY and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and MARQUEZ 1 , District Judge. MARQUEZ, District Judge: 5 J. Bruce McCubbrey, Donald L. Bartels, Virginia H. Meyer, Calvin B. Ward, and the law firm of McCubbrey, Bartels, Meyer & Ward (collectively "McCubbrey") appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in McCubbrey's malicious prosecution action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, see Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp. 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.