{ "id": 3029072, "name": "GERMAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO STEEL RULE DIE & FABRICATORS CO. et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Gonzalez v. Chicago Steel Rule Die & Fabricators Co.", "decision_date": "1982-05-14", "docket_number": "No. 81-2697", "first_page": "848", "last_page": "850", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 848" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 Mont. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2330861 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/48/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.W. 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ky, 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 4539057 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/192/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N.W. 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Iowa 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2082610 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/91/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.W. 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1894, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Wis. 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8704380 ], "year": 1894, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/111/0613-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 N.E.2d 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5238083 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/34/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 N.E.2d 285", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2970237 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/40/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ill. App. 3d 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3326024 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/65/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 N.E.2d 423", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. App. 3d 935", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5537778 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/92/0935-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 N.E. 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Ill. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3162872 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/175/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 A.2d 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 Md. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1879179 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/275/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 N.E.2d 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 815", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3415485 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/56/0815-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 N.E.2d 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3358892 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S. Ct. 53", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 L. Ed. 2d 36", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 828", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11318437, 11318502, 11318348, 11319087, 11319248, 11319029, 11318582, 11318266, 11318683, 11318909, 11318751 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0828-03", "/us/444/0828-04", "/us/444/0828-02", "/us/444/0828-10", "/us/444/0828-11", "/us/444/0828-09", "/us/444/0828-05", "/us/444/0828-01", "/us/444/0828-06", "/us/444/0828-08", "/us/444/0828-07" ] }, { "cite": "381 N.E.2d 1367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill. App. 3d 940", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3333292 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/64/0940-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 1257", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. App. 3d 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 N.E.2d 636", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. App. 3d 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3310693 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/68/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 N.E.2d 984", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. App. 3d 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3228866 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/81/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 N.E.2d 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "404 N.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill. App. 3d 651", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5554264 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/83/0651-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 N.E.2d 1286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1288" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3074116 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/78/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 A.L.R.3d 651", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 N.E.2d 229", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5475597 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 2d 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5448651 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/71/0470-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 470, "char_count": 6308, "ocr_confidence": 0.868, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.484333226789154e-08, "percentile": 0.44572405572680107 }, "sha256": "599644e883c338b6b9c80e6721a08b0e8b734869ef9a2bac2e7e6359f2cc8355", "simhash": "1:6b5878d42f7da44b", "word_count": 1037 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:18.366242+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GERMAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO STEEL RULE DIE & FABRICATORS CO. et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWe granted defendants\u2019 application for leave to appeal under Rule 308 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 308) after the court denied their motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint purporting to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution predicated upon a criminal proceeding.\nCount II alleged in substance that defendants falsely and maliciously filed a complaint with the State\u2019s Attorney that plaintiff had committed the crime of criminal trespass to land, and as a result he was arrested, brought to trial, and eventually found not guilty. As to damages, count II alleged generally that plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation, was brought into public disgrace, incurred expense in defending himself, and was prevented from attending to his regular affairs and duties.\nDefendants moved to dismiss count II on the basis that plaintiff failed to allege the necessary element of \u201cspecial injury.\u201d The court, in denying the motion, found that special damages need not be alleged, and certified the following question for review: \u201cWhether special damages are a necessary element of a malicious prosecution action predicated upon the institution of criminal proceedings.\u201d\nIn Illinois, a complaint in an action for malicious prosecution must allege facts showing \u201c \u2018(1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by the defendant; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (4) the presence of malice; and (5) damages resulting to the plaintiff.\u2019 (Ritchey v. Maksin (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 470,475.)\u201d (Joiner v. Benton Community Bank (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 40,45,411 N.E.2d 229, 232.) However, in malicious prosecution actions based on civil proceedings, Illinois is among the minority following the \u201cEnglish rule\u201d requiring a complainant to additionally all\u00e9ge and prove \u201cspecial injury\u201d (Annot., 35 A.L.R.3d 651, 653 (1971)), and in recent years the Illinois courts have consistently affirmed the special injury element in civil malicious prosecution actions (Bank of Lyons v. Schultz (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 235, 399 N.E.2d 1286; Davis v. Ruff (1980), 83 Ill. App. 3d 651,404 N.E.2d 405; Stopka v. Lesser (1980), 82 v App. 3d 323,402 N.E.2d 781; Savage v. Seed (1980), 81 Ill. App. 3d 744, 401 N.E.2d 984; Petrick v. Kaminski (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 649, 386 N.E.2d 636; Wiemer v. Havana National Bank (1978), 67 Ill. App. 3d 824,382 N.E.2d 1257; Berlin v. Nathan (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 940, 381 N.E.2d 1367, cert, denied (1979), 444 U.S. 828, 62 L. Ed. 2d 36,100 S. Ct. 53; Pantone v. Demos (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 328, 375 N.E.2d 480; Lyddon v. Shaw (1978), 56 Ill. App. 3d 815, 372 N.E.2d 685).\nDefendant, however, has cited no decisions holding that special injury is a necessary element in a criminal malicious prosecution suit, and we have found no Illinois case so holding. We note, however, that in Prosser, Torts sec. 119, at 849 (4th ed. 1971), it was stated that \u201ccertain kinds of damage necessarily follow from the wrongful prosecution [of a criminal proceeding] itself, and so will be assumed by the law to exist, and may be recovered without special pleading or proof\u201d and that in Krashes v. White (1975), 275 Md. 549,555,341 A.2d 798,801, the issue raised in the Maryland court of appeals was whether an arrest was an essential element of a criminal malicious prosecution suit. That court, after concluding that an arrest should be considered as \u201cspecial injury\u201d in a civil malicious prosecution suit, held that \u201c[ujnlike a plaintiff in a malicious use of civil process suit, the plaintiff in a criminal malicious prosecution action need not prove any special damages, such as arrest or seizure of property.\u201d We are in accord with the view, as expressed above, that special injury is not an essential element in a criminal malicious prosecution action and, in light thereof, we find that the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss Count II on that basis.\nMoreover, the discussion as to special injury in the Illinois decisions involving civil malicious prosecution equate it with an arrest or seizure of property. As stated in Bank of Lyons v. Schultz (1980), 78 Ill. 2d 235,239, 399 N.E.2d 1286,1288, plaintiff \u201cmust establish evidence of his arrest, the seizure of his property, or some other special injury which exceeds the usual expense and annoyance and inconvenience of defending a lawsuit.\u201d In Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co. (1898), 175 Ill. 619, 627,51 N.E. 569,571, it was stated that a civil malicious prosecution action would not lie unless \u201caccompanied by arrest of the person, or seizure of the property, or other special injury not necessarily resulting in all suits prosecuted to recover for like causes of action.\u201d See also Lasswell v. Ehrlich (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 935, 416 N.E.2d 423; Petrick v. Kaminski (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 649, 386 N.E.2d 636; Balthazar v. Dowling (1978), 65 Ill. App. 3d 824, 382 N.E.2d 1257; Alswang v. Claybon (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 147, 351 N.E.2d 285; Ammons v. Jet Credit Sales, Inc. (1962), 34 Ill. App. 2d 456,181 N.E.2d 601.\nThus, in the instant case, even assuming that special injury is an element in a criminal malicious prosecution suit, the allegation by plaintiff in count II that he was arrested and brought to trial sufficiently alleges special injury.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMEJDA and WILSON, JJ., concur.\nCount I of the 2-count complaint was dismissed, but it appears that no appeal has been taken therefrom.\nAs authority, Prosser cites Luby v. Bennett (1901), 111 Wis. 613,87 N.W. 804; Davis v. Seeley (1894), 91 Iowa 583, 60 N.W. 183; Barnes v. Culver (1921), 192 Ky, 10, 232 S.W. 39; Grorud v. Lossl (1913), 48 Mont. 274,136 P. 1069; and Restatement of Torts sec. 670 (1938).", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Malato & Stein, P. C., of Chicago (Stephen H. Malato and Robert S. Minetz, of counsel), for appellants.", "S. M. Del Principe, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GERMAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO STEEL RULE DIE & FABRICATORS CO. et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 81-2697\nOpinion filed May 14, 1982.\nRehearing denied June 18,1982.\nMalato & Stein, P. C., of Chicago (Stephen H. Malato and Robert S. Minetz, of counsel), for appellants.\nS. M. Del Principe, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0848-01", "first_page_order": 870, "last_page_order": 872 }