See Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 675(b) (1977) ("As in the case of the initiation of criminal proceedings, a decision by a competent tribunal in favor of the person initiating civil proceedings is conclusive evidence of probable cause. This is true although it is reversed upon appeal and finally terminated in favor of the person against whom the proceedings were brought."); see also Schneider v. Rodgers, 752 N.W.2d 33, 2008 WL 508481, *3 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 27, 2008) (unpublished op.) (finding that "it was not unreasonable for [the defendant] to make [the argument claimed to be maliciously prosecuted] in district court," and reasoned that "[t]he mere fact that a third judge ultimately rejected this argument," after two separate judges agreed with it, did not mean the defendant "did not have probable cause to resort to a court to settle this dispute.") Thus, based on the procedural history of this case, Hawkeye fails to show a lack of probable cause.E. Abuse Of Process
(1) a previous prosecution; (2) instigation of that prosecution by the defendant; (3) termination of the prosecution by acquittal or discharge of the plaintiff; (4) want of probable cause; (5) malice on the part of the defendant for bringing the prosecution; and (6) damage to the plaintiff.Wilson v. Hayes, 464 N.W.2d 250, 259 (Iowa 1990); see Winkel v. Von Maur, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 453, 460 (Iowa 2002), abrogated in part on other grounds by Barreca v. Nickolas, 652 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 2004); Royce v. Henning, 423 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Iowa 1998); Sarvold v. Dodson, 237 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1976); see also Craig v. City of Cedar Rapids, 826 N.W.2d 516, 2012 WL 6193862, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (unpublished table decision); Jackson v. Wesselink, 758 N.W.2d 349, 2011 WL 649471, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2011) (unpublished table decision); McLaughlin v. Ranschau, 791 N.W.2d 427, 2010 WL 3503543, at * 2 (Iowa Ct. App. Set. 9, 2010) (unpublished table decision); Schneider v. Rodgers, 752 N.W.2d 33, 2008 WL 508481, at *3 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) (unpublished table decision). "Malice means any wrongful act which has been willfully and purposely done to the injury of another.
(1) a previous prosecution; (2) instigation of that prosecution by the defendant; (3) termination of the prosecution by acquittal or discharge of the plaintiff; (4) want of probable cause; (5) malice on the part of the defendant for bringing the prosecution; and (6) damage to the plaintiff.Wilson v. Hayes, 464 N.W.2d 250, 259 (Iowa 1990); see Winkel v. Von Maur, Inc., 652 N.W.2d 453, 460 (Iowa 2002), abrogated in part on other grounds by Barreca v. Nickolas, 652 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 2004); Royce v. Henning, 423 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Iowa 1998); Sarvold v. Dodson, 237 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1976); see also Craig v. City of Cedar Rapids, 826 N.W.2d 516, 2012 WL 6193862, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (unpublished table decision); Jackson v. Wesselink, 758 N.W.2d 349, 2011 WL 649471, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2011) (unpublished table decision); McLaughlin v. Ranschau, 791 N.W.2d 427, 2010 WL 3503543, at * 2 (Iowa Ct. App. Set. 9, 2010) (unpublished table decision); Schneider v. Rodgers, 752 N.W.2d 33, 2008 WL 508481, at *3 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) (unpublished table decision). "Malice means any wrongful act which has been wilfully and purposely done to the injury of another.