MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONAuthored

The Law Mind • 1444 words

Definition

Malicious prosecution is a tort claim arising when one party initiates or continues a legal proceeding — criminal or civil — against another without probable cause, with malice or an improper purpose, and the proceeding ultimately terminates in the defendant's favor. It is the law's principal remedy for the abuse of legal process itself: not the outcome of a case, but the wrongful weaponization of courts and prosecution to injure another person.

The action recognizes that litigation can itself be a weapon. Where a criminal prosecution or civil suit is launched not to vindicate a genuine legal claim but to harass, intimidate, or harm, the injured party has a cause of action against the instigator once the underlying proceeding ends favorably.

---

Common Language

Wiktionary: "The wrongful initiation or continuation of criminal or civil proceedings against an individual without reasonable grounds and with improper motives."

Webster's 1913: Not separately defined; "malicious" is defined as "indulging or exercising malice; harboring ill will or enmity" and "prosecution" as "the act or process of prosecuting, or of endeavoring to gain or accomplish something."

The common-language understanding tracks the legal definition more closely than most tort terms do, but obscures a critical distinction: ordinary usage suggests malicious prosecution requires subjective spite or hatred. The legal standard for "malice" is broader — it can be satisfied by any improper purpose, including using process for an end other than the one for which it was designed, even without personal animosity. A researcher relying on the colloquial sense of "malicious" will underestimate which prosecutions qualify.

---

Common Confusion

Malicious prosecution is frequently conflated with two neighboring torts:

ABUSE OF PROCESS concerns the misuse of legal process after it has been properly initiated — the focus is on what happens during litigation, not on the decision to bring it. A party can commit abuse of process even when it has probable cause to sue. Malicious prosecution challenges the initiation itself.

WRONGFUL ARREST (or false arrest/false imprisonment) does not require a formal judicial proceeding. Malicious prosecution, by contrast, requires that a full legal proceeding — indictment, arrest warrant, or civil action — was actually set in motion through regular process. A police officer's warrantless arrest gone wrong is typically false arrest, not malicious prosecution.

Historical sources sometimes use "malicious prosecution" loosely to cover both, which can mislead researchers consulting older authorities.

---

Core Elements

The tort traditionally requires four elements, each of which must be established:

1. INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS. The defendant must have initiated or actively caused the institution of a criminal charge or civil action against the plaintiff. Merely providing information to police or prosecutors is ordinarily insufficient unless the defendant played an active, directing role in bringing the charge.

2. ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. The defendant lacked a reasonable, honest belief — based on facts then known — that the charge or suit was legally justified. This is an objective standard applied to circumstances at the time of initiation, not in hindsight.

3. MALICE. The defendant acted with an improper purpose. Courts have defined this variously as spite, ill will, or any purpose other than the legitimate enforcement of legal rights. Lack of probable cause, if sufficiently clear, may be circumstantial evidence of malice.

4. FAVORABLE TERMINATION. The underlying proceeding must have ended in the plaintiff's favor — by acquittal, dismissal on the merits, or analogous resolution — in a manner consistent with innocence. A dismissal secured by the plaintiff on procedural grounds or by compromise may not satisfy this element.

---

Recognized Forms

/SUBTYPES

MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. The original and historically dominant form: a private party procures or causes a criminal charge to be brought. The classic scenario involves a complainant who swears out a warrant or pressures prosecutors to indict without basis.

MALICIOUS CIVIL PROSECUTION. Many jurisdictions extend the tort to the wrongful initiation of civil litigation. The elements are substantially identical, but courts have historically been more reluctant to recognize civil malicious prosecution because access to courts is itself a valued right. Some jurisdictions require more stringent proof of malice in the civil context or impose heightened pleading requirements.

---

Why It Matters in Research

FAVORABLE TERMINATION IS THE RESEARCH TRAP. The favorable termination requirement has generated substantial and sometimes contradictory case law. A researcher focused on the definition of malicious prosecution without tracing how courts in the relevant jurisdiction define "favorable termination" will miss the decisive issue in most live disputes. Dismissals for lack of prosecution, plea negotiations, and nolle prosequi entries each have contested status.

PROBABLE CAUSE IMPORTS CRIMINAL LAW STANDARDS INTO TORT ANALYSIS. Because "probable cause" in the malicious prosecution context borrows heavily from Fourth Amendment and criminal procedure doctrine, researchers must move fluidly between criminal law sources and tort sources. The two bodies of law do not always define the phrase identically.

CIVIL MALICIOUS PROSECUTION IS JURISDICTIONALLY UNEVEN. Several states have declined to recognize malicious civil prosecution as a standalone tort, preferring to address litigation abuse through sanctions, anti-SLAPP statutes, or abuse of process doctrine. Researchers working on civil malicious prosecution claims must verify whether the cause of action is recognized at all before analyzing its elements.

ANTI-SLAPP INTERACTION. In many jurisdictions, anti-SLAPP statutes (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) now overlap functionally with malicious prosecution doctrine in the civil context, providing procedural shortcuts — including fee-shifting and early dismissal — that may be more practically useful than a malicious prosecution claim. Corpus materials on litigation abuse from the last thirty years should be read with this parallel framework in mind.

HISTORICAL SOURCES REFLECT A NARROWER SCOPE. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century authorities, including all three historical dictionaries here, largely address malicious criminal prosecution. Researchers finding a historical definition should not assume it extends to civil proceedings without additional authority, since the extension to civil cases largely developed through twentieth-century common law elaboration.

GOVERNMENT ACTOR COMPLICATIONS. When the defendant is a government official or prosecutor, sovereign immunity and prosecutorial immunity doctrines dramatically alter the analysis. The historical dictionary entries do not address this dimension, which is now among the most litigated aspects of the tort.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

The three historical sources converge on the essential structure of the tort: malice, want of probable cause, regular process, and a proceeding not warranted by the facts. Their agreement is substantial.

Black's Law Dictionary contributes the most precise framing, specifying that the process must be "regular and formal, but not justified by the facts" — a formulation that captures the paradox at the heart of the tort: the wrong is not procedural irregularity but the abuse of regular procedure for improper ends.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary adds an important doctrinal signal that the historical sources share: "Actions for malicious prosecution are not favored by the law." This judicial skepticism reflects a genuine tension — courts have long worried that a robust malicious prosecution tort would deter legitimate complainants and clog dockets with secondary litigation. Modern doctrine has softened but not eliminated this reluctance, particularly in the civil prosecution context.

Burrill's Law Dictionary, the most practice-oriented of the three, frames the tort as "the procuring the indictment or arrest of a person," narrowing the focus to criminal process and to the role of a private party who sets the machinery in motion. This framing usefully highlights the causal element — mere reporting is not enough; the defendant must have procured or directed the proceeding.

What all three sources lack: any treatment of civil malicious prosecution, governmental immunity, or the favorable termination doctrine. Their silence on these issues reflects the state of the law in their time, not settled authority on those questions today.

---

Jurisdictional Note

The favorable termination requirement and the recognition of civil malicious prosecution vary meaningfully across American jurisdictions. Some states (including California through its anti-SLAPP framework) have effectively channeled civil litigation abuse claims into alternative procedural mechanisms. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the malicious prosecution law of the forum state, and the tort's contours — particularly what constitutes "favorable" termination — differ enough that a result-determinative analysis requires jurisdiction-specific research.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Intentional Torts — Persons — Wrongful Arrest and Malicious Prosecution (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia) [Primary]
Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecution of Government Actors (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia) [For government-actor and prosecutorial immunity dimensions]

---

MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A ju- dicial proceeding instituted against a person out of the prosecutor's malice and ill will, with the intention of injuring him, without probable cause to sustain it, the process and proceedings being regular and formal, but not justified by the facts. For this injury an action on the case lies, called the "action of malicious prosecution."

MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A wanton prosecution made by a prosecutor in a criminal proceeding, or a plaintiff in a civil suit, without probable cause, by a regular process and proceeding, which the facts did not warrant, as appears by the result. Actions for malicious prosecution are not favored by the law; they are to be carefully guarded and their true principles strictly adhered to; 1 Ld. Raym. 374; 79 Mass. 201; 20 Ill. 354; Newell, Mal. Pros. 21. Where the defendant commences criminal prosecution wantonly, and in other respects against law, he will be responsible; 12 Conn. 219. The prosecution of a civil suit, when malicious, is a good cause of action, even when there has been no arrest; 11 Conn. 582; 1 Wend. 345. See 106 Mass. 300; Big. Torts 71; 65 Hun 365; 53 Minn. 439; Newell, Mal. Pros. 43. But see 1 Am. a Lead. Cas. 261; 21 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 287; 64 Ia. 741; 64 Pa. 289; 27 Ill. 489. In such cases the want of probable cause must be very palpable; very slight grounds will not justify an action; Big. Torts 71. See L R. 4 Q. B. 780. On the whole the weight of authority seems to be against the main- tenance of an action for the malicious prose- cution of a civil suit in which no process other than the summons was issued; 66 Cal 123; Newell, Mal. Pros. 37; 66 IIL App. 516. The bringing of an ordinary action, however maliciously, and however great the want of reasonable and probable cause, will not support an action for malicious prosecution; 11 Q. B. D. 690, contra, 42/ Vt. 203; otherwise of bankruptcy proceed- ings maliciously instituted, without prob- able cause; 11 Q. B. D. 674; brought after the adjudication in bankruptcy has been set aside; 10 App. Cas. 210; and of civil proceedings begun by attachment, or by arrest; Poll. Torts 303; also, probably, of bringing and prosecuting an action mali- ciously and without probable cause in the name of a third person; id. The action lies against the prosecutor, and even against a mere informer, when the proceedings are malicious; 9 Ala. 367. But grand jurors are not liable for informa- tion given by them to their fellow-jurors, on which a prosecution is founded; Hard. 556. Such action lies against a plaintiff in a civil action who maliciously sues out the writ and prosecutes it; 16 Pick. 459; but an action does not lie against an attorney at law for bringing the action, when regu- larly retained; 16 Pick. 478. See 6 Pick. 193. The attorney, however, must act in good faith. If an attorney knows that there is no cause of action, and dishonestly and with some sinister view, for some purpose of his own, or for some other ill purpose which the law calls malicious, causes the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned, he is liable; 34 Eng. C. L. R. 276; Newell, Mal. Pros. 23. The action lies against a corporation ag- gregate if the prosecution be commenced and carried on by its agents in its interest and for its benefit, and they acted within the scope of their authority; 6 Q. B. D. 287; 9 Phila. 189; 22 Conn. 530; 130 Mass. 443; 73 Ind. 430; Poll. Torts 301, contra, 11 App. Cas. 250 (a dictum, see id. 244, 256). See also Cooley, Torts 121; 7 C. B. N. S. 290; 55 J. P. 264. The proceedings under which the original prosecution or action was held must have been regular, in the ordinary course of jus tice, and before a tribunal having power to ascertain the truth or falsity of the charge and to punish the supposed offender. the now plaintiff; 3 Pick. 379. When the proceedings are irregular, the prosecutor is a trespasser; 3 Blackf. 210. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove affirmatively that he was prosecuted, that he was exonerated or discharged, and that the prosecution was both malicious and without probable cause; 11 Q. B. D. 440. Webb, Poll. Torts 392; Bish. Non-contr. L. §§ 218-250; 35 Md. 194; 48 Barb. 30; 8 Gill & J. 377; 12 Conn. 219; 3 Mass. 112. Malice is a question of fact for the jury, and is generally inferred from a want of probable cause; 65 Hun 623; but it is not evidence of malice when the prosecutor honestly believes in the charge: [1891] 20. B. 718; and such presumption is only prima facie and may be rebutted; 86 Ala. 250; see 41 La. Ann. 303; 45 Ill. App. 458; 65 Hun 625. Although absence of reasonable and probable cause is sometimes evidence of malice, yet it is not when the prosecutor actually believes in the charge: [1891] 2 Q. B. 718. From the most express malice, however, want of probable cause cannot be inferred; 35 Md. 194; 37 id. 283. Both malice and want of probable cause must concur in order to constitute a cause of ac- tion; 20 Nev. 290; 40 La. Ann. 374: 41 id. 311; 69 Тех. 167; 79 Ga. 637; 51 N. J. L. 391; 120 U. S. 141. The plaintiff must show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or crim- inal: 1 Camp. 199; 7 Cra. 339; 1 Mas. 24; 11 Ad. & E. 483: 24 Pick. 81; 2 Wend. 424; 1 Hill S. C. 82; 8 G. & J. 377; 9 Conn. 800; 3 Blackf. 445; 47 Kan. 396; 158 Pa. 545. Probable cause means the existence of such facts and circumstance

MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

Hominum causa jus constitutum est. Law is es- tablished for the benefit of man. Homo potest esse habilis et inhabilis diversis tem- poribus. A man may be capable and incapable at divers times. 5 Co. 98. Homo vocabulum est nature: persona juris ci- vilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (per- sona), of civil law. Calvinus, Lex. Hora non est multum de substantia negotit, licet in appello de ea aliquando fiat mentio. The hour is not of much consequence as to the substance of business, although in appeal it is sometimes men- tioned. 1 Buistr. 82. Hostes sunt qui nobis vel quibus nos bellum decer nimus; cæteri proditores vel prædones sunt. Ene mies are those upon whom we declare war, or who declare it against us; all others are traitors or pirates. 7 Co. 24; Dig. 50, 16, 118; 1 Sharsw. Bla. Com. 257. Id certum est quod certum reddi potest. That is certain which may be rendered certain. 2 Bla. Com. 143; 4 Kent 402; 24 Pick. 178; 11 Cush, 380; 90 Mass. 548; 99 id. 230; Broom, Max. 624 et seq.; 38 8. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 588; 67 111. App. 381. Id perfectum est quod ex omnibus suis partibus constat. That is perfect which is complete in all its parts. 9 Co. 9. Id possumus quod de jure possumus. We are able to do that which we can do lawfully. Lane 116. Id quod est magis remotum non trahit od se quod est magis junctum, sed e contrario in omni cass That which is more remote does not draw to itself that which is nearer, but the contrary in every case. Co. Litt. 164. Id quod nostrum est sine facto nostro ad alium transferri non potest. What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50. 17. 11. Id solum nostrum quod debitis deductis nostrum est. That only is ours which remains to us after deduction of debts. Trayner. Max. 227. Id tantum possumus quod de jure possumus. We can do that only which we can lawfully do. Tray- ner, Max. 287. Idem agens et patiens esse non potest. To be at once the person acting and the person acted upon is impossible. Jenk, Cent. 40, Idem est facere et non prohibere cum possis. It is the same thing to do a thing as not to prohibit it when in your power. 3 Inst. 158. Idem est nihil dicere et insufficienter dicere. It is the same thing to say nothing and not to say enough. 2 Inst. 178. Idem est non probari et non esse; non deficit fus sed probatio. What is not proved and what does not exist, are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof. Idem est scire aut scire debere aut potuisse. To be bound to know or to be able to know is the same as to know. Idem non esse et non apparere. It is the same thing not to exist and not to appear. Broom, Max. 165: Jenk. Cent. 207. Idem semper antecedenti proximo refertur. Idem always relates to the next antecedent. Co. Litt. 385; 7 Johns. Ch. 248. Identitas vera colligitur er multitudine signorum True identity is collected from a number of signi Bacon, Max. Reg. 29. Ignorantia eorum quæ quis scire tenetur non ex- cusat. Ignorance of those things which every one is bound to know excuses not. Hale, P. C. 42. See Tindal, C. J., 10 Cl. & F. 210; Broom, Max. 267; 4 Bla Com. 27. Ignorantia excusatur, non juris sed facti. Igno- rance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law. See IGNORANCE. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. 1 Co. 177; Broom, Max. 258, 263; Bart. Max. 100; 2 Gray 412; 1 Fonb. Eq. 119, п. See IGNORANCE. Ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis. The ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the in- nocent. 2 Inst. 501. Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. 8 Wend. 267: 18 id. 586; 6 Paige 189; 1 Edw. Ch. 467; 7 Watts 874; 2 Alb. L. J. 405; 19 id. 84; 8 id. 448; 6 id. 103: 27 L. Mag. 90; 73 Miss. 110; 111 Ala. 126; 74 Fed. Rep. 657. See IGNORANCE. Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur, nemi- nem excusat. Ignorance of law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no one. 2 Co.8b: 1 Plowd. 843; 9 Cl. & F. 824; Broom, Max. 253; 7 C. & P. 456; 9 Pick. 129: 16 Gray 596; 2 Kent 491. See IGNORANCE Ignorantia juris sui non præjudicat juri, Igno- rance of one's right does not prejudice the right. Lofft 552. See IGNORANCE. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Ignorance of law excuses no one. See IGNORANCE; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 111; 7 Watts 374. Ignorare legis est lata culpa. To be ignorant of the law is gross neglect. Bartolus on Cod. 1. 14. See CULPA. Ignoratis terminis, ignoratur et ars. Terms being unknown, the art also is unknown. Co. Litt. 2 Illud quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise lawful ne cessity makes lawful, and necessity makes a priv ilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61. Illud quod alteri unitur extinguitur, neque am- plius per se vacare licet. That which is united to another is extinguished, nor can it be any more in- dependent, Godolph. Rep. Can. 169. Immobilia situm sequuntur. Immovables f

malicious prosecutionnoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

The wrongful initiation or continuation of criminal or civil proceedings against an individual without reasonable grounds and with improper motives.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In