Legal Opinion

Wicker v. City of Maplewood

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 29, 1986No. C5-85-1499PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Appellant, cited for having expired license plates, brought a malicious prosecution claim against respondent after respondent dismissed the citation. By special verdict, a jury found no malicious prosecution by respondent. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and this court affirmed. See Wicker v. City of Maplewood, 378 N.W.2d 138 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). The trial court also found that appellant had acted in bad faith and ordered him to pay respondent’s attorney’s fees of $8401. This appeal followed. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

In April 1982, appellant Robert Wicker…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. National Recruiters, Inc. v. Toro Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. O'Neill v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Liedtke v. FillenworthCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Wicker v. City of MaplewoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Glarner v. Time Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  2. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  3. Johnson v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  4. Schleck v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Knecht Bros. v. Ames Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API