Opinion ID: 2617624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Termination in Favor of the Malicious-Prosecution Plaintiff

Text: The fourth element of malicious prosecution requires that the claim terminate [36] in the plaintiff's favor in each of the component suits of the Process. [37] The Wolfbergs assert that component A was not resolved in Greenberg's favor. The material submitted, supplemented by the admissions in the parties' briefs in this court, [38] demonstrates that Wolfberg asserted separate claims in component A  one for an accounting and dissolution of the partnership interests shared with Greenberg and a second claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed by Greenberg to Green Wolf Oil Company. Where more than one claim is asserted in a proceeding, it is proper for the court to review each claim separately to determine if it satisfies the delict's critical elements. If a claim is terminated in favor of the malicious-prosecution plaintiff, an action for malicious prosecution will lie on that singular claim, regardless of who prevails on other claims pressed in the same suit. [39] For there to be a prevailing party in an action requires that the underlying proceeding not have been dismissed without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice is not a termination favorable to the malicious-prosecution plaintiff. To hold differently would be to countenance the possibility of countervailing results arising from the same action. [40]