Selle v. Rosenstiel

197 Ill. App. 637
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedFebruary 1, 1916
DocketGen. No. 21,199
StatusPublished

This text of 197 Ill. App. 637 (Selle v. Rosenstiel) 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
Selle v. Rosenstiel, 197 Ill. App. 637 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Malicious prosecution, § 97*—when punitive damages recoverable. Punitive damages are recoverable in an action for malicious prosecution where the arrest is made under such circumstances as to indicate a wanton disregard by defendant of the rights of plaintiff in causing his arrest, or where the arrest is procured by means of a false affidavit. 7. Malicious prosecution, § 97*—how punitive damages should be assessed. In assessing punitive damages in actions of malicious prosecution there should be a wide difference between cases where defendant slightly fails to use ordinary care and acts without justifiable cause, but without malice, in causing plaintiff’s arrest, and cases where defendant intended to do plaintiff a wrong, and uses criminal process to gratify hatred and ill-will, each case being governed by its own facts, and to be decided reasonably and equitably. ' 8. Malicious prosecution, § 98*-—when verdict not excessive. In an action for malicious prosecution, where plaintiff after his arrest on a criminal warrant was in confinement in a cell for four hours before being released on bail, a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000 held not so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice in the minds of the jury. 9. Appeal and error, § 1406*—when verdict not disturbed on ground of excessiveness on appeal. The Appellate Court is not warranted in reducing the amount of a verdict, although on some single aspect of the case a smaller amount would be more satisfactory, where the trial court when appealed to refused to interfere and where the Appellate Court is unable to assign a clear and satisfactory reason for interference.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 Ill. App. 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selle-v-rosenstiel-illappct-1916.