Legal Opinion

Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Mann

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 7, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is earnestly-insisted by counsel for appellant that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict.

At the outset it may be stated that, to justify an action for malicious prosecution, both want of probable cause and malice must be shown. Keebey v. Stifft, 145 Ark. 8, and cases cited.

It is well' settled in this State that proof that the defendant in an action for malicious prosecution acted upon the advice of counsel learned in the law, or upon the advice of the public prosecutor, given after a full and fair statement of all the known…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Stewart v. SonnebornSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Kansas & Texas Coal Co. v. GallowaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
  3. L. B. Price Mercantile Co. v. CuillaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Price v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  5. Lemay v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Malvern Brick & Tile Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
  2. Rogers v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1972
  3. Lee v. DunbarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1944
  4. Crockett Motor Sales, Inc. v. LondonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  5. Glenn v. Hoerner Boxes, Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1962

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API