Morreale v. DeZotell

3 Citing cases

  1. Carroll v. Gillespie

    14 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that "evidence was sufficient to support findings that [defendant] initiated the complaints with knowledge that they were groundless, that he sought to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt, and that he did so in spite of Officer Gerard's explicit warning that this was not its proper purpose."

    The essential element to be proved is that the defendant lacked probable cause to believe that the plaintiff had committed the crime charged, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving that element. Morreale v. DeZotell, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 281, 281-282 (1980), and cases cited. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's proof was insufficient to support a finding that Gillespie lacked probable cause.

  2. Fiske v. Town of North Attleboro, No

    No. 0404764 (Mass. Cmmw. Apr. 16, 2007)

    '" Bednarz v. Bednarz, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 668, 674 n. 1 (1989) (citations omitted); see also Morreale v. DeZotell, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 281, 282 (1980), citing Restatement (Second) Torts ยง 673, Comment on (b) and (c). Here, the parties dispute whether the compressors were "new" when sold to the Town, whether Fiske was aware of the facts contained in the Siebe contract, and whether Fiske's statement that he was "responsible for the actions of the company" was actually an admission of guilt.

  3. Afrasiabi v. Rooney, No

    No. 976116 (Mass. Cmmw. Feb. 23, 1999)

    ' Lincoln v. Shea, 361 Mass. at 5-6." Morreale v. DeZotell, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 281, 282 (1980). Where the evidence relevant to the existence of probable cause is undisputed, the court may rule as a matter of law that such cause did exist, and the plaintiff will be found to have failed to establish the cause of action of malicious prosecution.