Eckels v. Pocorra

Appellate Court of Illinois

Eckels v. Pocorra

208 Ill. App. 20

DecidedOctober 11, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Ill. App. 20 (Eckels v. Pocorra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eckels v. Pocorra, 208 Ill. App. 20 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and ebror, § 1787*—when Appellate Court may either reverse judgment or consider case on merits. Where an appellee files no brief or argument, the Appellate Court may either reverse the judgment pro forma under its rules or consider the case on the merits. 2. Malicious prosecution, § '58*—when plaintiff has burden of proof. In an action for malicious prosecution, the' burden is on the plaintiff to show that defendant either caused his arrest for the offense charged or aided and abetted it in some way with malice and without probable cause. 3. Malicious prosecution, § 74*—when evidence does not show malice or that defendant caused, aided or abetted arrest. In an action for malicious prosecution, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant caused or aided and abetted in plaintiff’s arrest, or that he acted maliciously and without probable cause in connection with such arrest, or had any motive for so acting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Appeal and ebror, § 1787*—when Appellate Court may either reverse judgment or consider case on merits. Where an appellee files no brief or argument, the Appellate Court may either reverse the judgment pro forma under its rules or consider the case on the merits. 2. Malicious prosecution, § '58*—when plaintiff has burden of proof. In an action for malicious prosecution, the' burden is on the plaintiff to show that defendant either caused his arrest for the offense charged or aided and abetted it in some way with malice and without probable cause. 3. Malicious prosecution, § 74*—when evidence does not show malice or that defendant caused, aided or abetted arrest. In an action for malicious prosecution, evidence held insufficient to show that defendant caused or aided and abetted in plaintiff’s arrest, or that he acted maliciously and without probable cause in connection with such arrest, or had any motive for so acting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Ill. App. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckels-v-pocorra-illappct-1917.