Legal Opinion
See v. Gosselin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 16, 1946PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtElls, J.
This is an action for malicious prosecution based upon the commencement and prosecution of a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff. It is generally held that the plaintiff must allege and prove that the criminal action terminated in his favor, either by his acquittal or in some other manner equivalent thereto. Note, 69 A.L.R. 1062, and cases there cited. This is substantially in accord with the rule in this state. The three essential elements of an action for malicious prosecution are the discharge of the plaintiff, want of probable cause, and malice. Fusario v. Cavallaro, 108 Conn. 40,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McGann v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Thompson v. Beacon Valley Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1888
- Brown v. RandallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Frisbie v. MorrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- State v. GarveySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Roberts v. BabkiewiczCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- State v. LloydSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Hiers v. CohenConnecticut Superior Court · 1973
- Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.