Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorney
plaintiffdefendant

Related Cases

Martin-McFarlane v. City of Philadelphia, 299 F.Supp.3d 658
View Case »
Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners-Omaha I, L.P., 290 Neb. 658, 861 N.W.2d 444
View Case »
Cox v. Evansville Police Dept., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 2317074
View Case »
Cox v. Evansville Police Dept., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 2317074
View Case »
Whalen v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 288, 703 N.E.2d 246, 680 N.Y.S.2d 435, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,380, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 08696
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Meadows v. Grant, 15 Ariz.App. 104, 486 P.2d 216

Facts

Della Meadows was arrested on two occasions in 1967 after her husband, Safford Meadows, who was the manager of the Branding Iron Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge, had complaints filed against her by Homer K. Grant, the owner. The first arrest occurred when Della tore down a poster advertising a belly dancer, leading to a complaint for destruction of real property. The second arrest followed an altercation with a go-go dancer, resulting in a complaint for disturbing the peace. Both complaints were filed after Grant consulted with legal authorities, who advised him on the actions to take.

Della Meadows was arrested on two occasions in 1967 after her husband, Safford Meadows, who was the manager of the Branding Iron Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge, had complaints filed against her by Homer K. Grant, the owner.

Issue

Did Homer K. Grant maliciously and without probable cause procure and have executed false complaints against Della Meadows for destruction of real property and disturbing the peace?

Did Homer K. Grant maliciously and without probable cause procure and have executed false complaints against Della Meadows for destruction of real property and disturbing the peace?

Rule

In a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must prove that a criminal proceeding was initiated by the defendant without probable cause and with malice. Probable cause exists if the defendant had a reasonable belief that the plaintiff committed a crime, even if the legal advice received was erroneous.

In a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must prove that a criminal proceeding was initiated by the defendant without probable cause and with malice.

Analysis

The court found that Grant had probable cause to file both complaints against Della Meadows. The first complaint was based on her admitted act of tearing down a sign, which constituted destruction of property. The second complaint arose from her refusal to leave the premises after an altercation, which justified the charge of disturbing the peace. Grant's reliance on the advice of the city magistrate and city attorney further supported the existence of probable cause, despite the magistrate's misclassification of the crime.

The court found that Grant had probable cause to file both complaints against Della Meadows.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Grant, concluding that the plaintiffs did not prove a lack of probable cause for the complaints filed against Della Meadows.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Grant, concluding that the plaintiffs did not prove a lack of probable cause for the complaints filed against Della Meadows.

Who won?

Homer K. Grant prevailed in the case because the court found that he had probable cause to file the complaints against Della Meadows, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate malice or lack of probable cause.

Homer K. Grant prevailed in the case because the court found that he had probable cause to file the complaints against Della Meadows, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate malice or lack of probable cause.

You must be