malicious prosecution claim (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

malicious prosecution claim in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2022 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc.green
idahoctapp · 1987 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022
2 sentences

2022The Mundens argue that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the County attorney fees and costs “in excess of $15,000, well above the $7,500 bond posted by the Mundens.” The Mundens assert that the “recovery of damages, costs[,] and attorney fees occasioned by the temporary restraining order is limited to the amount of the bond.” (Citing McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., 113 Idaho 393, 402 , 744 P.2d 121, 130 (Ct. App. 1987).) The Mundens contend that the only exception to this rule “allowing for a collection of fees ‘in excess’ of the bond is where there has been a sho

2022The Mundens argue that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the County attorney fees and costs “in excess of $15,000, well above the $7,500 bond posted by the Mundens.” The Mundens assert that the “recovery of damages, costs[,] and attorney fees occasioned by the temporary restraining order is limited to the amount of the bond.” (Citing McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, Inc., 113 Idaho 393, 402 , 744 P.2d 121, 130 (Ct. App. 1987).) The Mundens contend that the only exception to this rule “allowing for a collection of fees ‘in excess’ of the bond is where there has been a sho

22
Taylor v. McNicholsgreen
idaho · 2010 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting

2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting

22
Badell v. Beeksgreen
idaho · 1988 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting

2020Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment contending that because the county prosecutor had obtained a search warrant, probable cause existed and therefore a malicious prosecution claim could not proceed.8 To recover under a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1) [t]hat there was a prosecution; (2) [t]hat it terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) [t]hat the defendant was the prosecutor; (4) [m]alice; (5) [l]ack of probable cause; and (6) [d]amages sustained by the plaintiff.” Taylor v. McNichols, 149 Idaho 826, 843 , 243 P.3d 642, 659 (2010) (italics removed) (quoting

22
Herrold v. Idaho State School for the Deaf & Blindgreen
idahoctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017There are six elements of a malicious prosecution claim: “(1) prosecution of the plaintiff; (2) termination of the prosecution in favor of the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant instigated the prosecution; (4) that the defendant was activated by malice; (5) that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff; and (6) that the plaintiff sustained damages.” Herrold v. Idaho State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 112 Idaho 410, 411-12 , 732 P.2d 379, 380-81 (Ct. App. 1987).

2017There are six elements of a malicious prosecution claim: “(1) prosecution of the plaintiff; (2) termination of the prosecution in favor of the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant instigated the prosecution; (4) that the defendant was activated by malice; (5) that there was a lack of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff; and (6) that the plaintiff sustained damages.” Herrold v. Idaho State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 112 Idaho 410, 411-12 , 732 P.2d 379, 380-81 (Ct. App. 1987).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Stohr v. Donahue green
kan · 1974
2 sentences

1987Stohr v. Donahue, 215 Kan. 528 , 527 P.2d 983 (1974).

1987Stohr v. Donahue, 215 Kan. 528 , 527 P.2d 983 (1974).

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

CA 264 (1979–2026) TX 102 (1982–2026) NY 93 (1978–2025) IL 60 (1992–2026) OH 56 (1986–2026) AL 36 (1983–2025) NC 35 (1984–2021) FL 31 (1982–2026) NJ 28 (1982–2026) MS 25 (1992–2023) TN 24 (1997–2025) LA 23 (1983–2025) GA 21 (1983–2026) IN 19 (1980–2025) MI 17 (1978–2024) MD 16 (1972–2024) MO 16 (1987–2024) WA 15 (1989–2018) MT 15 (1980–2025) AZ 14 (1975–2026) KY 14 (2001–2025) PA 14 (1977–2023) IA 11 (1980–2023) HI 11 (1998–2024) OR 10 (1994–2025) OK 10 (1993–2022) CO 9 (1990–2025) WV 9 (1995–2024) VA 9 (1980–2025) NV 8 (2002–2020) VT 8 (1986–2026) MA 8 (1979–2010) CT 8 (1999–2024) SC 7 (2007–2022) DE 7 (2017–2024) NM 7 (1994–2015) DC 7 (1980–2022) KS 7 (1994–2026) AR 6 (1996–2023) ID 6 (1987–2022) RI 6 (1979–2008) AK 5 (1981–2025) WI 5 (1981–2026) UT 4 (1991–2013) NH 4 (1995–2019) WY 3 (1990–2024) MN 3 (1986–2017) ME 2 (1997–2000)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check