Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal. 4th 336, 83 P.3d 497 (2004)
After Nasser Beydoun’s complaint against Casa Herrera for breach of a commercial contract and fraud was dismissed based on the parol evidence rule (barring evidence of prior oral promises that are inconsistent with a written agreement), Casa Herrera filed suit against Beydoun for malicious prosecution. Beydoun argued that termination of the previous lawsuit based on the parol evidence rule did not satisfy the “favorable termination” element of a malicious prosecution claim; the Supreme Court held that it did on the ground that the parol evidence rule “is not a rule of evidence but is one of substantive law.”