Free US Law Dictionary
BETA
Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. While similar to the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting or pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, "malicious prosecution" is reserved for the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while "malicious use of process" refers to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys, as well as judges, are normally protected, by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity, from tort liability for malicious prosecution.
The mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process, have gone beyond the mere filing of a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.
Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded." (Accord Lossing v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 635, 638-640[255 Cal.Rptr. 18]; see also Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines, supra, 198 Cal.App.2d at p. 615 [Court of Appeal has remedies for frivolous appeals]; Green v. Uccelli (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1122-1123 [255 Cal.Rptr. 315]
Miazga: Malicious Prosecution
On February 7, 2008, the SCC granted leave to appeal to Matt Miazga from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s finding of liability for the tort of malicious in the decision Miazga v...
Malicious Prosecution Suit Reinstated
Miller v. Spiers, 2009 WL 2219256 (7/27/09) (unpub'd) - In a § 1983 case, the 10th holds the allegations were sufficient so far to support a malicious prosecution claim...
Malicious prosecution: CRAYCROFT V. PIPPIN (COA 1/18/2008)
CRAYCROFT V. PIPPIN TORTS: Malicious prosecution 2006-CA-001569 PUBLISHED: VACATINGA ND REMANDING PANEL: TAYLOR PRESIDING; COMBS, ACREE CONCUR COUNTY: JEFFERSON DATE RENDERED: 01/18/2008 CA vacates and remands the TC entry of SJ dismissing this malicious prosecution claim...
Supreme Court Clarifies Malicious Prosecution
The Supreme Court has just released the judgment in Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51, what would appear to be the final stop in a long and unhappy ride through both the criminal and civil legal systems in Saskatchewan...
AZ - Malicious prosecution (The Joel Barr Story)
View the article here
Joel Barr was set up and convicted for crimes never committed. He has been in AZ state prison for over 7 years...
Third DCA: Malicious Prosecution Claim Against Employer not Subject to Arbitration
Although it's difficult to tell all of the facts from the Court's brief opinion, it would appear that the employee had an employment contract with his employer in which he agreed to arbitrate rather than litigate any employment-related claims under the "Employment Retirement Income Security Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Older Workers' Benefits Protection Act, as well as all other federal, state, and local employment-related laws, regulations, rules or theories...
















