Hite

Hite v. Triton Energy Ltd.

Good Law
35 F. App'x 434
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 23, 2002Nos. 99-56975, 99-56997, 00-55502; D.C. No. CV-97-07146-MLR(CT)California1,739 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Triton Energy Limited, Triton Energy Corporation, and Triton Indonesia Inc. (collectively, Triton), appeal from jury verdicts for David Hite (Hite) and International Veronex Resources, Limited (Veronex), in their malicious prosecution suit against Triton. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court.

I. The Judgment for Hite

We affirm the judgment of compensatory damages for Hite. However, we reverse the district court’s decision to apply California punitive damages law and remand with instructions to apply Texas punitive damages law. We therefore leave in place our order staying the district court’s order allowing Hite to withdraw funds from the court registry, until the district court enters an amended judgment.

A. Probable Cause

We disagree with Triton’s argument that, under Texas malicious prosecution law, judicial determinations in the underlying lawsuit raise a presumption of probable cause. The Texas Supreme Court held in Akin v. Dahl 1 that “[i]t is the events prior to the institution of the proceedings which must be examined, and only those events, to determine if the…

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.