Legal Opinion

Lipscomb v. Shofner

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1896PublishedCited by 11 opinions

FROM BEDFORD. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Bedford County. W. C. HoustoN, J.

1Opinion of the CourtBeard, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the malicious prosecution of a civil suit begun with an ordinary summons, and unaccompanied with an attachment or seizure of the property. The trial *113Judge, in his charge, said to the jury that, if they found the suit in question was brought maliciously and without probable cause, resulting in actual damage to the present plaintiff, then this action could be maintained. This instruction, it is now insisted, is erroneous.

That malicious prosecution is a proper action in which to recover damages for the institution of a civil suit with malice and without…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Marbourg v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
  3. Wetmore v. MellingerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
  4. Mitchell v. Southwestern RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
  5. Closson v. StaplesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Kolka v. JonesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Bickel v. MacKieDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1978
  3. Deshawn Gervin v. Pamela FlorenceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2025
  4. O'TOOLE v. FranklinOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Kauffman v. AH Robins CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1969

6 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