Neufeld v. Rodeminski
Citations
- 144 Ill. 83
- 32 N.E. 913
Syllabus
<p>1. Malicious prosecution — advice of counsel as a defense. The law upholds and favors prosecutions under the public laws of the land, and shields and protects parties instituting them in good faith and from proper motives. So, when a party consults with counsel of good standing, and lays before him fully the facts within the party’s knowledge, and then acts in good faith and in the honest belief that the party charged is probably guilty of the criminal offense, he will not be held responsible, if it shall turn out that the party is not guilty.</p> <p>2. Same — advice of counsel as a shield—not acted on in good faith. But this rule supposes always that the party seeking counsel does so in good faith, and also that he has made to his counsel a full and honest statement of the facts. If counsel is sought simply for protection against indulging his malice, or to enable him to use the criminal laws for unjust and oppressive uses for his private gain and advantage, it will afford no defense to the party causing the arrest, but will be rather an element of increased damages.</p> <p>3. If a criminal prosecution is instituted by a party maliciously, and not in good faith upon the advice of legal counsel that a crime has been committed, he will be liable for a malicious prosecution, and the advice of counsel will not avail as a defense.</p> <p>4. So, if, notwithstanding the advice of counsel, a criminal prosecution is instituted for the purpose of forcing the collection of a debt, without probable cause that a crime has been committed, the party so prosecuting can not shield himself behind the advice of counsel.</p> <p>5. If a criminal prosecution is instituted against one for the mere purpose of coercing him into the payment of a debt, or the surrender of some right claimed, and not in the interest of public justice, or to vindicate the law and punish crime, and the charge is falsely made, the fact that the prosecutor procured the advice of counsel will not shield him fro
Judges: Shope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Denton v. Allstate Insurance Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1986-11-26· cited 33×
- J. B. Colt Co. v. GrubbsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1925-01-09· cited 11×
- Galarza v. SpragueAppellate Court of Illinois· 1936-03-23· cited 7×
- Belvidere Gaslight & Fuel Co. v. JacksonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-04-11· cited 4×
- Freeman v. WrightAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-03-16· cited 2×
- Ellsworth v. Peoples Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois· 1927-10-25· cited 2×
- Albrecht v. WardAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-09-08· cited 1×
- Franczak v. PlotzkiAppellate Court of Illinois· 1913-03-24· cited 1×
- McClain v. C. F. Adams Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1908-04-21
- Levinson v. ThomasAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-16
- Dawson v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1920-10-28
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.