District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 3/17/1978
Ammerman v. Newman
Citations
- 384 A.2d 637
- 1978 D.C. App. LEXIS 449
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the separate and distinct tort of “malicious prosecution” may expose a defendant to liability for initiating a lawsuit “maliciously and without probable cause”
- “[I]n order for a plaintiff to prevail in an action for malicious prosecution in a civil suit, there must be an arrest of the person or seizure of the property of the plaintiff, or other special injury sustained.”
- “[P]robable cause [in a malicious prosecution case] depends not on the actual state of the case in point of fact, but upon the honest belief of the person instituting [the proceeding]. It may flow from a belief that turns out to be unfounded as long as it is not unreasonable.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gallagher, Yeagley, Mack
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Friedman v. DozorcMichigan Supreme Court· 1981-11-23· cited 243×
- Christopher G. Pitt, Sr. And Tela Hansom-Pitt v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 2007-06-26· cited 148×
- Sanders v. Daniel International Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1984-12-18· cited 134×
- Morowitz v. MarvelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1980-11-05· cited 99×
- Brody v. RubySupreme Court of Iowa· 1978-06-28· cited 98×
- Dormu v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2011-06-07· cited 95×
- Brown v. CarrDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-01-22· cited 81×
- Berlin v. NathanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1978-09-14· cited 74×
- Bown v. HamiltonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1992-01-17· cited 66×
- HAVILAH REAL PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC v. VLK, LLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2015-01-29· cited 59×
- Weisman v. MiddletonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1978-08-14· cited 58×
- Joeckel v. Disabled American VeteransDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2002-03-21· cited 54×
- Dalo v. KivitzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1991-08-07· cited 49×
- Sherrod v. McHughD.C. Circuit· 2018-09-25· cited 39×
- Prewitt v. SextonKentucky Supreme Court· 1989-09-28· cited 37×
- Mazanderan v. McGraneryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1984-09-28· cited 32×
- Southern Maryland Agricultural Ass'n v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.D. Maryland· 1982-05-07· cited 30×
- Moore v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia· 2015-04-17· cited 29×
- Tyler v. Central Charge Service, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1982-04-15· cited 26×
- Smith v. United States of AmericaDistrict of Columbia· 2015-08-14· cited 26×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body CorporateD.C. Circuit· 1972-07-20· cited 455×
- Melvin v. PenceD.C. Circuit· 1942-06-30· cited 66×
- Masterson v. Pig'n Whistle Corp.California Court of Appeal· 1958-06-16· cited 32×
- Prieto v. May Department Stores CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1966-02-01· cited 32×
- Smith v. TuckerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1973-05-04· cited 26×
- Chapman v. AndersonD.C. Circuit· 1925-01-05· cited 24×
- Peckham v. Union Finance Co.D.C. Circuit· 1931-04-06· cited 20×
- Nolan v. Allstate Home Equipment Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1959-03-20· cited 17×
- Davis v. Boyle Bros.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1950-05-18· cited 16×
- Lee v. DunbarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1944-04-14· cited 9×
- Effie D. Chatterton v. Joseph O. Janousek, Joseph O. Janousek v. Effie D. ChattertonD.C. Circuit· 1960-06-23· cited 5×
- Reyman v. Edward H. Jones & Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1953-04-08· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.