WILLIAM E. LEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL FEINBERG AND ANN FEINBERG, HIS WIFE, AND JOHN P. BOOTH, APPELLEES
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.
Leach sued Feinberg and Booth for malicious conspiracy based on their prosecution of a federal contract action. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that parties to litigation enjoy immunity from suits based on the institution or maintenance of legal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances.
The court held that parties to litigation have a qualified privilege protecting them from suits based on the institution or maintenance of legal proceedings, and that Leach's complaint failed to state a valid cause of action for malicious conspiracy. The proper remedy for allegedly malicious prosecution is an action for malicious prosecution, which has specific prerequisites and defenses.
“The Court is of the opinion that to remove the privilege of parties litigant in a civil suit would lead to far more injurious consequences in numerous instances than the injury which may be sustained in isolated instances under the present law.”
The circuit court's rationale for dismissing the malicious conspiracy complaint, establishing the public policy behind the privilege protecting litigants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeinberg and Booth filed suit in federal court against Leach for breach of contract and injunctive relief. Their federal complaint was dismissed twice…
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 Common Law Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant as plaintiff in the circuit court sued appellees for malicious conspiracy. Appellant grounded his action upon a suit filed by appellees in the United States District Court. Appellees are the two plaintiffs in the suit instituted in the Federal Court and their attorney of record. From an order dismissing the complaint in the circuit court this appeal is taken.
The conspiracy alleged against the defendants is their prosecution of the cause in the United States District Court as principals and attorney. The litigation in the United States District Court proceeded as follows: Defendants here, as plaintiffs in that court, filed suit to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract and prayed for ancillary relief by way of an injunction to prevent the sale of certain property by the defendant in that suit. The complaint in the Federal Court was dismissed. An amended complaint was filed and dismissed and was followed by a second amended complaint which was dismissed with prejudice. An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals was taken from this last order and it was during the pend-ency of the appeal that the complaint for malicious conspiracy was instituted in the State Court.
The circuit judge dismissing the corn-paint for malicious conspiracy entered an order, in part as follows:
“The Court is of the opinion that to remove the privilege of parties litigant in a civil suit would lead to far more injurious consequences in numerous instances than the injury which may be sustained in isolated instances under the present law.”
Appellant urges the case of Phillips & Sons, Inc., v. Kilgore, 152 Fla. 578, 12 So.2d 465, as authority for reversal of the order of dismissal. In the Phillips case the corporation induced and incited a third party to institute a suit in the third party’s name, not on any meritorious basis, but for the sole purpose of damaging Kilgore. Phillips had no interest in the suit except to injure Kilgore. In the case at bar the defendants-principals instituted a suit on a contract in their own names, for their own interest. At the institution of the action in the State Court the final outcome of the first instituted litigation was not determined. The only conspiracy suggested is between the defendants and their own attorney, who, it is alleged, was paid for his advice.
Phillips & Sons, Inc., v. Kilgore, supra, is not a proper basis for the *54type of action the plaintiff sought to present in the circuit court, and the circuit judge correctly dismissed the amended complaint. See Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357; Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 123 So. 916; Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Company, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 198, 45 A.L.R.2d 1292. The last cited cases deal with slander or libel, but they illustrate that the common law action of malicious prosecution with its prerequisites and defenses is the proper action for the alleged malicious maintenance of legal proceedings by a plaintiff.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CITAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…A 1977). . Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 230 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1969). . 10 FIa.Jur.2d Conspiracy-Civil Aspects § 1 (1979). . Id.; Prosser, supra note 4, at § 119; see Bencomo v. Morgan, 210 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Leach v. Feinberg, 101 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 104 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1958). . Cf. Johnson v. City of Pompano Beach, 406 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . The comment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 states "the requirement that it [the affidavit] show affirm…
-
Leach v. Feinberg, 104 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1958)…Certiorari denied without opinion, 101 So. 2d 52.…
Authorities Cited
- Myers v. Freeman S. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1907)
- DR. P. Phillips & Sons, Inc. v. Kilgore, 152 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1943)
- Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1929)
- Robertson v. Indus. Ins. Co., 75 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1954)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Max Silverman v. Coleman, 152 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1943)