Legal Opinion

Weiden v. Weiden

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 1929No. Docket No. 64, Calendar No. 34,146PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). In actions for malicious prosecution three propositions must be established: (1) The fact of the alleged prosecution and that it has come to a legal termination in plaintiff’s favor; (2) that the defendant had no probable cause; (3) that he acted from malicious motives. Thomas v. Bush, 200 Mich. 224. It is a. recognized rule that malice may be inferred from want of probable cause, but this is not a rule that works both ways. "Want of probable cause may not be inferred from jnalice. In Hamilton v. Smith, 39 Mich. 222, it was said:

“And if it appear that the defendant…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Pawlowski v. JenksMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Christy v. RiceMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Rogers v. OldsMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Thomas v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. CrouchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
  2. Matthews v. Blue Cross and Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Pauley v. HallMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Rivers v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Turbessi v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930

15 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