Legal Opinion

Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 1974PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

The plaintiff was acquitted of a criminal charge of shoplifting. She brought this malicious prosecution action, the jury awarded her damages and the defendant, Payless Drug Stores, appeals.

The principal assignment of error is that the trial court erred, in denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. Payless urges that the trial court erred in this regard because Payless had probable cause to prosecute plaintiff. Proof of probable cause is a complete defense to the action. We recently discussed the requirement of probable cause in a malicious prosecution action in Varner v. Hoffer,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. ClomanOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Kuhnhausen v. StadelmanOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Hess v. Oregon Baking Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Gowin v. HeiderOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Hryciuk v. RobinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1958

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Harrell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Miller v. Columbia CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. Lampos v. Bazar, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Rose v. WhitbeckOregon Supreme Court · 1977

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