Legal Opinion

Ash v. Ash

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1995No. 94-1160PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

The issue certified to this court is whether “a compromise between a defendant in a criminal proceeding and the prosecutor foreclose^] a later malicious prosecution claim against the complaining witness when the complaining witness was not a party to that compromise.” The answer to this query is “yes.”

This court previously has held that “[t]he elements of the tort of malicious criminal prosecution are (1) malice in instituting or continuing the prosecution, (2) lack of probable cause, and (3) termination of the prosecution in favor of the accused.” Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1990), 53…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Trussell v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Schumer v. Craig Distributing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Shinn v. Bank of CrockerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Lamar Wright v. City of EuclidCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
  2. Broadnax v. Greene Credit ServiceOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Broaddus v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1995
  4. Davidson v. Castner-Knott Dry Goods Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2006
  5. Stillwagon v. City of DelawareDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016

30 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