Opinion ID: 2617624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: conclusion

Text: Application of the rules announced today requires that malicious prosecution be distinguished from abuse of process  the former lies for the malicious initiation of process and the latter for a perversion of the process after it is issued. If process is wrongfully initiated and later perverted, both torts would lie since they are not to be viewed as mutually exclusive delicts. The limitation periods for both torts are triggered by accrual of the respective causes of action. Because malicious prosecution is a tort disfavored by our jurisprudence and abuse of process is fact-specific, i.e., tied to misuse of process in a particular action, the applicable limitation period must be gauged on a case-by-case basis. As pointed out earlier in this opinion, the question  whether the earlier components of the Process are relevant to show (a) in malicious-prosecution claims the elements of probable cause, malice and/or punitive damages or (b) in abuse-of-process claims improper or ulterior motives or application  constitutes a matter within the certifying court's cognizance. [55] CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED. HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and HARGRAVE, OPALA, ALMA WILSON, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur; SIMMS and KAUGER, JJ., concur in result.