Trussell v. General Motors Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.
For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for a new trial.
I
The primary issue before us is this: must the plaintiff show an arrest or seizure in order to maintain an action for malicious prosecution founded on a prior criminal proceeding? In order to resolve this issue, we must revisit and clarify our prior pronouncements in this area.
Ohio law, like the English common law before it, has long recognized a right to recover in tort for the misuse of civil and criminal actions as a means of causing harm. See Pope v. Pollock (1889), 46 Ohio…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- O'Day v. WebbOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Crawford v. Euclid National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Border City Savings & Loan Ass'n v. MoanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Kelly v. WhitingOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Woodruff v. PaschenOhio Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by147 opinions
- Geoffrey M. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted FallsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Kenneth C. Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Brenda Bickerstaff v. Vincent LucarelliCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Harris v. BornhorstCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.