Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort.Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution.
Miazga v Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on how the tort of malicious prosecution applies to Crown attorneys and other public prosecutors. Specifically, the court held that there is no requirement for a public prosecutor to have a subjective belief that an accused person is actually guilty.
Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case. In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict. (For example, malice is an element of the crime of arson in many jurisdictions.)
Malicious prosecution – Similar to abuse of process, but includes intent, pursuing without probable cause, and dismissal in favor of the victim. In some jurisdictions, malicious prosecution is reserved for the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while malicious use of process refers to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Dignitary torts are a category of intentional tort affecting the honour, dignity, and reputation of an individual and include: Defamation, [k] invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, torts related to the justice system such as malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and torts pertaining to sexual relations that are considered obsolete in ...
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
Under U.S. law, in order to rise to an actionable level of negligence (an actual breach of a legal duty of care), the injured party must show that the attorney's acts were not merely the result of poor strategy, but that they were the result of errors that no reasonably prudent attorney would make.
At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts, as was barratry (the bringing of vexatious litigation). This is generally no longer so [5] as, during the nineteenth century, the development of legal ethics tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the Swynfen will case (1856–1864). [6]