Legal Opinion

Yelk v. Seefeldt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1967PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHansen, J.

The defendants contend that there is no credible evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendants, in signing the application for a judicial inquiry as to the mental condition of the plaintiff acted (1) without probable cause and (2) with malice.

There are six essential elements which must be proved in a successful action for malicious prosecution. Two of them are as follows:

1. There must have been want of probable cause for the institution of the former proceeding.

2. There must have been malice in instituting the former proceeding. Elmer v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1950), 257 Wis.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Eitel v. Times, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Alvarez v. Retail Credit Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Elmer v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Gladfelter v. DoemelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Manz v. KlippelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Sanders v. Daniel International Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
  2. Strid v. ConverseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Michael L. Piaskowski v. John BettCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  5. Valiga v. National Food Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

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