Fields v. Goldstein

379 So. 2d 410, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15756

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

In an action for malicious prosecution, the lower court entered summary judgment for the defendant Goldstein, an attorney who had filed a malpractice claim on behalf of a client against the plaintiff-appellant, an osteopathic physician. We do not decide whether such a case can ever be successfully maintained,¹ because the record demonstrates conclusively that there was neither a want of probable cause nor malice in Gold-stein’s pursuit of the original proceeding against the appellant. See City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla.1979); Ammerman v. Newman, 384 A.2d 637 (D.C.1978); Carroll v. Kalar, 112 Ariz. 595, 545 P.2d 411 (1976); Spencer v. Burglass, 337 So.2d 596 (La.App.1976), writ denied, 340 So.2d 990 (La.1977); Tool Research and Engineering Corp. v. Henigson, 46 Cal.App.3d 675, 120 Cal.Rptr. 291 (1975).

Affirmed.

1 . See. e. g., Brody v. Ruby, 267 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 1978); Berlin v. Nathan, 64 Ill.App.3d 940, 21 Ill.Dec. 682, 381 N.E.2d 1367 (1978).