Legal Opinion
Paton v. Rose
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 22, 1964No. 3557PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
QUINN, Associate Judge:
This was a suit for malicious prosecution and double rent under Code 1961, § 45-907. 1 At the close of all the evidence the trial court found that appellant had failed either to establish a case of malicious prosecution or to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellees had violated Section 907. Both of these findings are challenged on appeal.
In Bumphus v. Smith, D.C.App., 189 A.2d 130, 131 (1963), we held:
“To maintain his action it was incumbent on appellant to allege and prove (1) the initiation of the criminal proceeding by appellee, (2) with malice and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Auerbach v. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1915
- Bumphus v. SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963
3Cited by3 opinions
- S. Freedman & Sons, Inc. v. Hartford Fire InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- Horn & Hardart Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1987
- Almy v. GrishamAlbemarle County Circuit Court · 2001