 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sacco v. High Country Independent Press2/14/1995
Sacco at her place of employment and accused her of stealing the photographs from HCIP, threatened her and caused her to fear for her safety.
4. The defendants "acted with malice and without probable cause in causing the Complaint to be filed against, and in instigating and continuing the prosecution of Plaintiff" and that the statements made by defendants Sorlies to Dighans, Schreiber and plaintiff's employer were "false, defamatory and damaging to Plaintiff."
5. The defamatory statements caused great injury to her reputation, and she has suffered great mental anguish, physical discomfort and inconvenience as well as incurring expenses in defending the charge.
The criminal charges filed against Sacco were eventually dismissed because it was subsequently determined that prosecution of the alleged criminal conduct was barred by the statute of limitations.
Sacco alleged the following five counts in her complaint:
1. Malicious Prosecution;
2. Defamation
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
5. Civil Rights Violation
Eventually, motions for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint were filed by the defendants. In a number of orders filed by the District Court, the various summary judgment motions on all five counts of the complaint were granted. Sacco appealed from these orders on May 20, 1994. We now address the question of whether summary judgment was correctly granted on the five counts of Sacco's complaint.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of a summary judgment order is de novo. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The initial burden is on the moving party to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact; and once met, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish otherwise.
Spain-Morrow Ranch Inc. v. West (1994), 264 Mont. 441, 444, 872 P.2d 330, 331-32. (Citations omitted.)
INTRODUCTION
Sacco alleged that defendant Dighans committed violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also alleged that Dighans committed the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that the Sorlies, HCIP and Dighans committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. She further asserted that HCIP and the Sorlies defamed her and finally, that all defendants engaged in malicious prosecution. We address all five counts and the grant of summary judgment on each in turn.
I. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — COUNT V
Sacco argues that the District Court erred by granting Dighans' motion for summary judgment as to Count V of the complaint, which alleged violation of Sacco's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dighans argues that he is protected from Sacco's claims by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The District Court agreed with Dighans and concluded that Dighans had probable cause to prepare and file the complaint against Sacco. The court also concluded that Dighans had complied with the "objective reasonableness" mandate set forth in Malley v. Briggs (1986), 475 U.S. 335, 344-45, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1098, 89 L.Ed.2d 271. We disagree.
Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages only where their conduct does not violate clearly established s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|