|
In ''Janetka v. Dabe'', 892 F.2d 187, 190 (2d Cir.1989), the Second Circuit considered whether, under New York law, a plaintiff could satisfy the element of "favorable termination" requisite to a malicious prosecution claim when he had been acquitted on a misdemeanor charge (resisting arrest) but convicted of a less serious charge (disorderly conduct, a violation).〔(Janetka v. Dabe on Google Scholar )〕 ==Background== In 1986, Andrew F. Janetka, Jr. was arrested by Darrell Dabe of the Suffolk County Police Department for resisting arrest. Janetka was found guilty of a lesser charge, disorderly conduct, and Dabe was reprimanded for how he documented the incident. Janetka later filed suit against the county under the concept of respondeat superior. The court reiterated that, under New York law, *A "favorable termination" is a termination indicating that the accused is not guilty.〔Here it cited Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193 (2d Cir.1980)〕 *When the termination is indecisive, the surrounding facts must be examined to determine “whether the failure to proceed implies a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution.”〔Here it cited Conway v. Village of Mount Kisco, 750 F.2d 205, 215 (2d Cir.1984)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Janetka v. Dabe」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|