California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 21 Cal.3d 910, 582 P.2d 980 (Cal. 1978):
6 It is true that the record contains no Direct evidence that defendant, in pursuing the course of conduct that it did, acted with the indicated motivation and intent. However, as we said in Bertero, the requisite state of mind, often referred to as "malice in fact," may be proved "either expressly (by direct evidence probative on the existence of hatred or ill will) or by implication (by indirect evidence from which the jury may draw inferences). (Davis v. Hearst, supra, 160 Cal. 143, 162, 116 P. 530.)" (13 Cal.3d at p. 66, 118 Cal.Rptr. at p. 201, 529 P.2d at p. 625.) The record herein is replete with evidence of the latter variety.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.