G. C. MURPHY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND PINKERTON'S, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANINA FRESHKO AND MICHAEL FRESHKO, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Janina Freshko sued G.C. Murphy Company and Pinkerton's, Inc. for malicious prosecution and won a jury verdict awarding her and her husband damages. The defendants appealed, challenging the jury verdict as excessive and certain evidentiary rulings, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and denial of their motion for new trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the jury verdicts through remittitur and denying the motion for new trial. The introduction of the not guilty verdict was proper and constituted the best evidence that the prior action was terminated in the plaintiff's favor, satisfying an essential prerequisite for a malicious prosecution action.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial when it has reduced jury verdicts to an amount that does not shock the judicial conscience…
[2] In a malicious prosecution action, the introduction of a prior not guilty verdict is permissible to prove that the prosecution terminated in favor of the plaintiff.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An essential prerequisite to the bringing of a malicious prosecution action, that there be a bona fide termination of prosecution in favor of the plaintiff, is satisfied if there is a adjudication on the merits in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings or if there is a nolle prosequi or declination to prosecute entered in good faith by the prosecutor.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes proper termination of prosecution in a malicious prosecution case and justifies the admissibility of the not guilty verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanina Freshko, joined by her husband Michael, brought a malicious prosecution action against G.C. Murphy Company and Pinkerton's, Inc. At trial, the …
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 Shock The Judicial Conscience cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellee, Janina Freshko, joined by her husband, Michael filed the instant suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant-appellants, G. C. Murphy Company and Pinkerton’s, Inc. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury rendered its verdict awarding Mrs. Freshko (1) $20,000 in compensatory damages against both defendants, (2) $15,000 in punitive damages against defendant G. C. Murphy, and (3) $25,000 in punitive damages against the defendant Pinkerton’s, Inc. In addition thereto, the jury awarded plaintiff’s husband $10,000 in compensatory damages against both defendants. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for remittitur and a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence and so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience. The motion for new trial was denied. However, the trial judge entered a remittitur of $5,000 on each of the verdicts listed here-inabove and entered judgment thereon. Defendant-appellants appeal therefrom.
One of appellants’ points on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for new trial and entering a final judgment on a jury verdict which was excessive. Upon a review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in reducing the jury verdicts and denying appellants’ motion for new trial. See 23 Fla.Jur. New Trial § 59 (1959). Thus, this contention of appellants must fail.
Appellants also contend that it was reversible error to allow a finding of not guilty for the plaintiff, Janino Freshko, into evidence over their objection. We cannot agree.
An essential prerequisite to the bringing of a malicious prosecution action, that there be a bona fide termination of prosecution in favor of the plaintiff, is satisfied if there is a adjudication on the merits in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings or if there is a nolle prosequi or declination to prosecute entered in good faith by the prosecutor. Davis v. McCrory Corporation, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 207. Thus, the introduction of the not guilty verdict was the best means of plaintiff’s proving that the prior action was terminated in her favor. We also considered appellants’ remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…here has been an adjudication on [*381] the merits favorable to him or if there is a good faith nolle prosequi or declination to prosecute. Jackson v. Biscayne Medical Center, Inc., 347 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. C. Murphy Company v. Freshko, 293 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Davis v. McCrory Corporation, 262 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The defendants here attach unwarranted significance to the phrases “nolle prosequi” and “declination to prosecute,” suggesting that if the abandonment of the crimin…
-
Am. Credit Card Tel. Co. v. Nat'l PAY Tel. Corp., 504 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…int become sufficiently quasi-judicial to support a claim for malicious prosecution. See generally, Melvin v. Pence, 130 F. 2d 423, 426-427 (D.C.Cir.1942); Davis v. McCrory Corp., 262 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); G.C. Murphy & Company v. Freshko, 293 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Nonetheless, we find that the proceedings in the instant case did not reach that point, and that NPT’s filing of a petition for a 120.57 hearing did not commence a quasi-judicial proceeding for purposes of satisfying the first el…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. McCRORY Corp., 262 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)