Court Opinion

ID: 9474663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:04:33.926199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:14.696044
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority today holds that James L. Williams failed to make a submissible case on the lack of probable cause for his prosecution, an essential element of his malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the majority rules that the district court erred in denying Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc.’s motion for a directed verdict as well as its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and reverses the judgment entered below in Williams’ favor. I disagree.
In reviewing the decision of a district court upon a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we use the same standard applied by that court in determining the issue. That is, we must determine whether or not the evidence was sufficient to create a submissible case for the jury. Horn v. Ray E. Friedman & Co., 776 F.2d 777, 779 (8th Cir.1985).
A directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only when all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the non-moving party. Furthermore, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, assume as true all facts supporting the non-moving party which the evidence tends to prove, and give the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Thomure v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 781 F.2d 141, 142 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Craft v. Metromedia, Inc., 766 F.2d 1205, 1218 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1285, 89 L.Ed.2d 592 (1986); SCNO Barge Lines, Inc. v. Anderson Clayton & Co., 745 F.2d 1188, 1192-93 (8th Cir.1984); Crues v. KFC Corp., 729 F.2d 1145, 1148 (8th Cir.1984).
After examining the evidence presented in this case under the above standards, I believe that Williams made a submissible case on his malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the district court did not err when it denied Ryder's motion for a directed verdict and its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Ryder is entitled, however, to a new trial in view of the intervening change in Missouri law as expressed in Sanders v. Dan*859iel International Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo.1984) (en banc). In Sanders, the Missouri Supreme Court focused on the type of malice necessary to establish liability in a malicious prosecution action. The court rejected the “malice in law” standard, which had been used in Missouri, and instead adopted a legal malice standard.1 In the process, the court specifically disapproved of the use of Missouri Approved Instruction No. 16.01 and No. 23.07, and held that the giving of these instructions entitled the defendant to a new trial. Id. at 814.
In the present case, the district court, without the benefit of Sanders, used both Missouri Approved Instruction No. 16.01 and No. 23.07. “An appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless to do so would result in manifest injustice * * *.” Bradley v. School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974); Flanigan v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 632 F.2d 880, 889 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 921, 101 S.Ct. 1370, 67 L.Ed.2d 349 (1981). Therefore, in light of Sanders, I believe that Ryder is entitled to a new trial.2

. The Missouri Supreme Court noted that:
In general, the law recognizes three degrees of malice. First, there is malice in its universal sense as understood in the popular mind, which means “ill will, spite, personal hatred, or vindictive motives.” * * * This type of malice is commonly referred to as “malice in fact” or "actual malice.”
A second degree of malice is malice in its legal sense. The definition of legal malice has a broader meaning than the popularly understood definition of malice in fact. Malice in its enlarged legal sense embraces any improper or wrongful motive — that is, malo animo. * * * *
Third, there is "malice in law.” This degree of malice is properly defined as a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Sanders v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 682 S.W.2d at 807-08 (citations omitted).

. Williams contends that the district court’s use of Missouri Approved Instruction No. 16.01 and No. 23.07 was not prejudicial. This argument lacks merit.