Legal Opinion

Crawford v. Euclid National Bank

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1985No. 84-1526PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Per curiam

In the first paragraph of the syllabus in Bruck, supra, this court stated that “[a]s a general rule no suit will lie for the malicious prosecution of a civil action, where there has been no arrest of the person or seizure of property.”

The plaintiffs-appellants submit that one who has been required to deposit funds in an escrow account and accept a less favorable mortgage rate has sustained a sufficient seizure of property to establish a prima facie cause of action for malicious prosecution, assuming all other elements of the tort are also present. Appellants contend that the requirement that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Border City Savings & Loan Ass'n v. MoanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Kauffman v. AH Robins CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Kelly v. WhitingOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Avco Delta Corp. v. WalkerOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Woodruff v. PaschenOhio Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Trussell v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Hawley v. RitleyOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Uebelacker v. Cincom Systems, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1988

39 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