Court Opinion

ID: 9740310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:32:17.727089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.399832
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion treats the evidence in this case as though it were uncontradicted to an extent necessary to establish the guilt of the plaintiff of the crime for which he was tried and acquitted, and therefore as establishing probable cause for his prosecution as a matter of law. There were disputed issues of material fact which might or might not be controlling, both on the issue of probable cause and on the issue of malice. The testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant as to what occurred on the occasion out of which the criminal prosecution arose is almost diametrically opposed. It is only when there is sufficient undisputed evidence to show probable cause that the trial court should direct a verdict for the defendant in an action for malicious prosecution. See Annotation, 87 A. L. R. 2d 183.
On a motion for summary judgment, the question is whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and not how that issue should be decided. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is directed. Piper v. Hill, 185 Neb. 568, 177 N. W. 2d 509.
This court has repeatedly stated that summary judgment is an extreme remedy. It should only be awarded when the issue is clear beyond all doubt. Any reasonable doubt touching the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving *19party. Hollamon v. Eagle Raceway, Inc., 187 Neb. 221, 188 N. W. 2d 710.
There are substantial and genuine issues of material fact here and the motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
Newton, J., joins in this dissent.