Opinion ID: 2204581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does the requirement of `special injury' to state a claim for a malicious prosecution action still remain the law of Iowa?

Text: Yes. As the federal district court recognized in its order of certification, In this jurisdiction the rule always has been no cause of action arises from malicious prosecution unless there has been either an arrest, seizure of property, or a special injury sustained which would not necessarily result in all suits prosecuted to recover for like causes of action. Brody v. Ruby, 267 N.W.2d 902, 904 (Iowa 1978). We first recognized this rule in 1884. Wetmore v. Mellinger, 64 Iowa 741, 744, 18 N.W. 870, 871 (1884). We have required plaintiffs in malicious prosecution cases to prove such special damages ever since. See, e.g., Whalen, 621 N.W.2d at 687-88; Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Cedar Rapids Television Co., 552 N.W.2d 639, 643 (Iowa 1996); Royce v. Hoening, 423 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Iowa 1988); Brody, 267 N.W.2d at 904; Aalfs v. Aalfs, 246 Iowa 158, 160-68, 66 N.W.2d 121, 122-27 (1954); White v. Int'l Text-Book Co., 156 Iowa 210, 219, 136 N.W. 121, 125 (1912); Dorr Cattle Co. v. Des Moines Nat'l Bank, 127 Iowa 153, 158, 98 N.W. 918, 920-21 (1904); Smith v. Hintrager, 67 Iowa 109, 109, 24 N.W. 744, 744 (1885); cf. Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 594 F.2d 692, 695 n. 1 (8th Cir.1979) (Iowa clearly requires special damages for malicious prosecution actions.); Hanson v. Hancock Mem'l Hosp., 938 F.Supp. 1419, 1447 (N.D.Iowa 1996); Bickel v. Mackie, 447 F.Supp. 1376, 1379 (N.D.Iowa 1978). See generally Mark S. Cady, Curbing Litigation Abuse and Misuse: A Judicial Approach, 36 Drake L.Rev. 483, 487 (1987) (acknowledging and criticizing special-injury requirement for tort of malicious prosecution). On many of these occasions  most recently less than four years ago in Whalen  we have explicitly declined to abandon the special-injury rule notwithstanding a stated awareness that other authority does not require it. See, e.g., Whalen, 621 N.W.2d at 688 (We are aware other authority no longer requires this element.) (citing, in part, Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 674 cmt. e, at 455, 681 cmt. d, at 470 (1977)); Brody, 267 N.W.2d at 905 (noting slight majority of jurisdictions did not impose the special-injury requirement but finding no persuasive reason to change course); Aalfs, 246 Iowa at 160-62, 66 N.W.2d at 122-24 (declining invitation to overrule Wetmore even though there was a line of authority holding otherwise); see also Royce, 423 N.W.2d at 201-02 (declining invitation to abandon outdated special-injury rule). Following in the footsteps of those in preceding generations, Foley argues the special-injury rule is outdated and now should be abandoned. As phrased, the certified question expressly permits Foley to run this well-trod course. In our judicial system, of course, one may always question whether a precedent is controlling by asking whether it remains the law; it is manifest that we are free to overrule precedents when circumstances warrant. We do not atavistically cling ... to distinctions which can have no practical significance but to interpose ancient formalities in the path of justice. Learned Hand, The Deficiencies of Trials to Reach the Heart of the Matter, Address Before the N.Y. City Bar Ass'n (Nov. 17, 1921), in 3 Lectures on Legal Topics 89, 93 (1926) [hereinafter Hand Lecture] (quoted in Engel v. C.B.S., Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 195, 689 N.Y.S.2d 411, 711 N.E.2d 626, 630 (1999)); see, e.g., Barreca v. Nickolas, 683 N.W.2d 111, 121-23 (Iowa 2004) (abandoning improper purpose definition of actual malice). Once again, however, we decline to abandon the special-injury rule. In the case at bar, Whalen clearly controls and nothing has subsequently happened  in Iowa or in other jurisdictions  to call into doubt the continued validity of our unanimous holding in that case. Cf. Cameron v. Hardisty, 407 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Iowa 1987) (declining to overrule prior cases in response to certified question where no reason, factually or legally, to depart from the rule expressed in our prior decisions). A substantial number of courts ... [still] permit the action for wrongful civil proceedings only when the plaintiff has suffered `special injury' or `special grievance' as a result of the wrongful litigation. 2 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 437, at 1232 (2001 & Supp.2004); see, e.g., Engel, 689 N.Y.S.2d 411, 711 N.E.2d at 629-31 (in answering certified question, [d]ispelling rumors of the special injury requirement's demise in New York; noting that special-injury rule is [n]o mere ancient formalism but rather its justifications in American jurisprudence have continuing viability). We also note that generally reconsideration of stare decisis is not a matter for us to decide via certified question. See, e.g., Cavalli v. McMahon, 174 Conn. 212, 384 A.2d 374, 376-77 (1978); Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 437 So.2d 46, 47 (Miss.1983); Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 232, 677 N.Y.S.2d 764, 700 N.E.2d 303, 309 (1998); W. Helicopter Servs., Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp., 311 Or. 361, 811 P.2d 627, 631 (1991); Concerned Dunes W. Residents, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 349 S.C. 251, 562 S.E.2d 633, 639 (2002); cf. Tarr v. Manchester Ins. Corp., 544 F.2d 14, 15 (1st Cir.1976) (The purpose of certification is to ascertain what the state law is, not, when the state court has already said what it is, to afford a party an opportunity to persuade the court to say something else.). But see Hartford-Carlisle Sav. Bank v. Shivers, 566 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Iowa 1997) (where recent case had shed doubt upon the absolute bar rule, answer to certified question necessitated). Having answered the first certified question in the affirmative, we now turn to the three remaining questions. For the sake of simplicity, we rephrase and combine them into a single question. Shaw v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 663 A.2d 464, 465 n. 1 (Del.1995).