Legal Opinion
Junod v. Bader
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 31, 1983No. 3066PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in holding that his successful completion of an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) program was not a sufficiently favorable termination of the criminal proceedings to support this malicious prosecution action. Because we agree with the lower court that the ARD program, as a court-supervised compromise, is not a sufficiently favorable termination of criminal proceedings to support a subsequent malicious prosecution action, we affirm.
On June 5, 1980, appellee filed a private criminal complaint charging appellant with…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KindnessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Dietrich Industries, Inc. v. AbramsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Di Sante v. Russ Financial Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- De Salle v. Penn Central Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. BrileySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Gilles v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- John A. Hilfirty Martha L. Miller v. David C. Shipman Kenneth R. Schriner Brett O. Feese Stephen C. Schopfer Betty A. Noll. Martha MillerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Hart v. O'MALLEYSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Al Hamilton Contracting Co. v. CowderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Maia Caplan, in 95-1445 v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey David L. Braverman. Maia Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey David L. Braverman, Vigilant Insurance Company, in 95-1478Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.