INCARNACION PEREZ AND MARCELO LARGEL
v.
VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, A WIDOW
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $500 judgment for malicious prosecution against appellants who signed a lunacy petition. The court found that the issues of malice and probable cause were questions for the jury, and the evidence supported their verdict.
Yes, the evidence presented questions of malice and probable cause that were properly for the jury to decide, and the verdict was not excessive.
“It was alleged that the defendants [*502] below (appellants here) signed the petition through malice and without reasonable cause.”
This quote establishes the core allegation of the malicious prosecution lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, along with others, signed a lunacy petition against Victoria Rodriguez, leading to a commission to examine her sanity. Rodriguez sued …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case of malicious prosecution originating in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The basis of the suit is a lunacy petition signed by the three defendants below, and others, which resulted in the appointment of a commission to examine into the sanity or insanity of Victoria Rodriguez, plaintiff below. It was alleged that the defendants *502below (appellants here) signed the petition through malice and without reasonable cause.
The case went to the jury on issues made by the several allegations of plaintiff’s declaration and pleas of defendants viz: (1) not guilty; (2) the petition was signed on the advice of counsel after a full, correct and fair statement of all material facts bearing upon plaintiff’s insanity, and the signing of the petition was without malice and was based on probable cause. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below in the sum of $500.00, and defendants appealed.
Two reasons are urged here for a reversal of the verdict and judgment: (1) the verdict is excessive, and (2) the evidence fails to establish malice and the lunacy petition was not signed without probable cause. We have studied the record and careful consideration has been given to all the testimony and it is our conclusion that the several issues made presented purely questions for the jury under our system. See White v. Miami Home Milk Producers Ass’n., 143 Fla. 518, 197 So. 125.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
BUFORD, J., dissents.
dissenting:
It appears to me that the record shows that the defendants in the court below, appellants here, acted in good faith and on probable cause.
BUFORD, J.,
dissenting:
It appears to me that the record shows that the defendants in the court below, appellants here, acted in good faith and on probable cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glass v. Parrish, 51 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1951)…er, there is no certainty, and but slight possibility, that justice will be better served by an attempt to ferret it out upon appeal, absent a definite showing of harmful and, consequently, reversible error. *722 In the case of Perez v. Rodriguez, 155 Fla. 501, 20 So. 2d 654, we said: "In action for malicious prosecution, consisting in signing lunacy petition against plaintiff, issues of malice, probable cause, reliance upon advice of counsel, and damages were for jury." We approve the following quotation…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Amrep Corp., 358 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1978)…f-state corporation which maintains its commercial domicile (principal place of business) in Florida is likewise subject to Florida’s intangible personal property tax on the basis of the “owner-domicile” theory. Genesee Corp. v. Owens, 155 Fla. 502, 20 So. 2d 654 (1945); cf. Gay v. Bessemer Properties, 159 Fla. 729, 32 So. 2d 587 (1947). On the contrary, a foreign corporation which does business in Florida without maintaining its principal place of business in this State is subject to Florida’s intangible pe…
-
Rushing v. Bosse, 652 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ceeding to have a person declared insane, consequently restraining the person’s liberty and committing the person to the care and custody of an institution. See Fisher v. Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378 (Fla.1927); Perez v. Rodriguez, 155 Fla. 501, 20 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1945). The person who is the victim of such a proceeding may maintain an action for malicious prosecution based on the institution of the unfounded proceeding. Fisher, 93 Fla. at 1094, 113 So. at 381. An action for malicious prosecution may als…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. Miami Home Milk Producers Ass'n & E. J. Melton & B. F. Thompson, 143 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1940)