TORTS – Malicious Prosecution
2005-CA-000259
PUBLISHED
REVERSING AND REMANDING; HENRY, J.
DATE: 4/28/2006
The prosecutor stated that two factors prompted his decision to move for a dismissal: (1) Davidson’s police report stating the checks had been stolen; and (2) the fact that Caster-Knott no longer did business in Warren County. The trial court dismissed the case "without" prejudice even though Davidson argued that any dismissal should be with prejudice. Davidson later filed a malicious prosecution suit against Caster-Knott. Caster moved for SJ, arguing that the dismissal "without prejudice" was not a termination of proceedings in her favor. The trial court agreed and dismissed Davidson’s claim. On appeal, the CA held that one of the elements of a malicious prosecution claim is that the initial criminal (or civil) proceedings were terminated in the defendant’s favor. It then held as a matter of law that a dismissal of a criminal case — whether with or without prejudice — constitutes a final termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim.
Digested by Stephen Keller.