Villa v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 37 Cal. App. 4th 8 - Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995), 46 Cal. App. 4th 534 - Frankel v. Board of Dental Examiners (1996)
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 13 Cal. 3d 43 - Bertero v. National General Corp. · 47 Cal. 3d 863 - Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker · 3 Cal. 3d 841 - Babb v. Superior Court · 18 Cal. 2d 146 - Jaffe v. Stone · 25 Cal. 3d 747 - Lackner v. LaCroix
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be reflective of the merits of the action and of the plaintiff's innocence of the misconduct alleged therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Villa argues that the underlying lawsuit was settled over his protest and objections, and that he did not participate therein. He contends that the settlement actually operated as a voluntary unilateral dismissal of himself by Seeterlin, and was thus a favorable termination on the merits. However, even where a defendant does not agree to a settlement made on his behalf, his or her dismissal from the lawsuit pursuant to that settlement will not be viewed as a favorable termination as long as it was a necessary condition to achievement of the overall settlement. Such a dismissal is not considered unilateral because it was required by the terms of a settlement agreement, and it will act as a bar to a later malicious prosecution action by the nonsettling defendant. [Citation.] “That is the situation in this case. As appellant concedes, the terms of the settlement between the City and Seeterlin required the dismissal of all the defendants, including Villa. The City could not realize the benefits of settling the litigation with Seeterlin unless the action against Villa was simultaneously terminated. Otherwise, the City would continue to be exposed to potential liability on Villa’s behalf, both for defense and for indemnification, and would therefore still be a participant in the litigation, contrary to its aims in settling with Seeterlin and his attorney. In short, Seeterlin dismissed Villa from the lawsuit because it was necessary to effect the settlement with the City. Such a te”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) to collect legal fees arising out of McCubbrey's representation of FMALI in another proceeding. FMALI, represented by defendants, filed a cross-complaint 2 against McCubbrey for, among other things, legal malpractice. On November 8, 1991, the parties settled both the complaint and cross-complaint.DISCUSSION 7 To establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution in California, a plaintiff must show that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCubbrey v. Veninga
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.