Ohio Supreme Court, 1922

Woodruff v. Paschen

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 5, 1922 · Hough

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 213; 137 N.E. 867; 105 Ohio St. 396; 1922 Ohio LEXIS 283

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Crawford v. Euclid National Bank (Ohio 1985)
Layshock v. Phillips (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Trussell v. General Motors Corp. (Ohio 1990)
Davenport v. Schulcz (In re Schulcz) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio 1987)
Perry v. Adjustable Awning, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1962)
Wilcox v. Gregory (Ohio Ct. App. 1960)
Rogers v. Barbera (Ohio 1960)
Pollock v. Kanter (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Killilea v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
Kelly v. Whiting (Ohio 1985)
Border City Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Moan (Ohio 1984)
Reenan v. Klein (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)
Conant v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 1964)
Ashcraft v. Lodge (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)
Baltimore O. Rd. Co. v. McTeer, Admr. (Ohio Ct. App. 1936)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

Woodruff’s automobile was struck and he was injured in an accident with Paschen. Woodruff consulted with his attorney and was advised by him that Paschen was violating a misdemeanor statute. In August, Paschen was taken into custody and released on bail, after being confined in a jail for some time. The matter was allowed to drag along until September. He was given a hearing and was discharged, on a finding that no offense had been committed. On the trial of the case there seemed to be a dispute as to whether Paschen was acquitted", or the parties agreed to terminate the controversy. Suit was then filed, asking for damages for malicious prosecution. The defense relied upon by Woodruff was, the advice of counsel. Held:

1. The elements of fact involved in actions for damages for malicious prosecution are malice and the absence of probable cause.

2. Advice of counsel is a complete defense, only when.it covers the time from the institution to the final disposition of the prosecution.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.