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

plaintiffdefendantdamagestrialsummary judgmentfelonygrand jury
plaintiffdefendantdamageslitigationtrialmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585, 71 USLW 4282, 60 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1349, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,805, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2948, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3783, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 216, 1 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 739
View Case »
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,274, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 877
View Case »
Mullen v. Horton, 46 Conn.App. 759, 700 A.2d 1377
View Case »
Cullen v. Dickenson, 33 S.D. 27, 144 N.W. 656, 50 L.R.A.N.S. 987, Am.Ann.Cas. 1916B,115
View Case »
Lavoie v. Celotex Corp., 505 A.2d 481, 54 USLW 2480
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Turner v. City of Chicago, 91 Ill.App.3d 931, 415 N.E.2d 481, 47 Ill.Dec. 476

Facts

On December 24, 1972, Arnold Van Bergen, manager of Donnelley's plant security, received a report of copper ingots being thrown from a window. After observing an individual, later identified as Claudell Turner, drop two ingots when police headlights were turned on, Van Bergen executed a felony complaint against Turner for theft. Although a grand jury later returned a 'no true bill', the court found that Van Bergen had an honest belief in Turner's guilt based on the information he received and his observations.

On the afternoon of December 24, 1972 Arnold Van Bergen, manager of Donnelley's plant security department, was informed that an employee had observed copper ingots being thrown from a window of one of Donnelley's buildings to the ground.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. in Turner's action for malicious prosecution?

We consider whether the trial court erred in granting Donnelley's motion for summary judgment.

Rule

The essential elements of malicious prosecution include the commencement of a judicial proceeding by the defendant, termination in favor of the plaintiff, absence of probable cause, presence of malice, and damages. Probable cause is an absolute bar to a malicious prosecution claim.

The essential elements of the action of malicious prosecution are (1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by the defendant; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (4) the presence of malice on the part of defendant; and (5) damages resulting to the plaintiff.

Analysis

The court determined that Van Bergen had probable cause to believe Turner was guilty of felony theft based on the observations made and information received from security officers. The return of a 'no true bill' by the grand jury did not negate the existence of probable cause, and malice could not be inferred where probable cause was established.

We have concluded that Donnelley proceeded against Turner with probable cause, and therefore malice cannot be inferred.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Donnelley, concluding that Turner failed to demonstrate a lack of probable cause or malice.

Consistent with the foregoing we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

Who won?

R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. prevailed because the court found that there was probable cause for the felony complaint, which barred Turner's malicious prosecution claim.

The summary judgment for Donnelley entered by the trial court is a salutary means of disposing of litigation in which there is no genuine factual dispute.

You must be