Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Slade v. City of Phoenix, 541 P.2d 550.

36 citing documents.

CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The “elements of malicious prosecution are (1) a criminal prosecution, (2) that terminates in favor of plaintiff, (3) with defendants as prosecutors, (4) actuated by malice, (5) without probable cause, and (6) causing damages.”
Muscat v. Creative 418 P.3d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Muscat v. Creative 418 P.3d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 25 (2004) (recognizing that an element of the cause of action for legal malpractice stemming from criminal litigation is that the conviction has been set aside); (noting the essential elements of malicious prosecution include a criminal prosecution that terminates in favor of plaintiff).
Watkins v. Arpaio 367 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Watkins v. Arpaio 367 P.3d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A required element of a claim for malicious prosecution is that the prosecution "terminate in favor of the plaintiff.”
Jimenez v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jimenez v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 Jimenez asserted two claims against Yuma County and Deputy Sutton: malicious prosecution and “false arrest/imprisonment.” “The essential elements of malicious prosecution are (1) a criminal prosecution, (2) that terminates in favor of plaintiff, (3) with defendants as prosecutors, (4) actuated by malice, (5) without probable cause, and (6) causing damages.”
Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
False arrest and imprisonment consist of non-consensual detention of a person “without lawful authority.”
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Torrez v. Knowlton Dupnik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Torrez v. Knowlton Dupnik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 550 (1975) (unlawful detention essential element of false arrest and false imprisonment); P.2d 1156 (1978) (false imprisonment defined as detention of person without consent and without lawful authority); P
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sarwark Motor Sales v. Woolridge, supra.
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 701 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 701 P.2d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Appellant notes that Arizona courts have held that “the phrases probable cause and reasonable grounds to believe refer to the same standard of proof.” Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984
Reams v. City of Tucson 701 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Reams v. City of Tucson 701 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984 674 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1983
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-84984 674 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 647 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 647 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
-404 , State v. Frye, 245 N.W.2d 878, 880-81 (N.D.1976); Hamer v. United States, 259 F.2d 274, 282-83 (9th Cir. 1958), cert.
Bearup v. Bearup 596 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Bearup v. Bearup 596 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Scarborough v. Central L. & P. Co.
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Walsh v. Eberlein 560 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976
Carroll v. Kalar 545 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1976