Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Higgins v. Pacesetter Corp.
Citations: 694 So. 2d 1267; 1997 WL 187100Docket: 1960281
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; April 18, 1997; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Justice Almon dissents from the denial of certiorari review regarding a summary judgment in favor of Pacesetter Corporation in a malicious prosecution case brought by Bennett Higgins. Pacesetter had previously sued Higgins, claiming he wrongfully notarized the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Houston without their presence, which led to the dismissal of Pacesetter's case due to its failure to appear at trial. Higgins contends that Pacesetter lacked probable cause for its action, as it had itself orchestrated the notarization without the Houstons being present. Evidence presented by Higgins indicates that a Pacesetter sales agent requested the notarization and that it was Pacesetter's standard practice to do so outside the parties' presence. Higgins argues that Pacesetter was equally at fault (in pari delicto) and therefore could not claim probable cause against him. Almon believes Higgins's arguments have merit, asserting that if a jury accepts Higgins's account, it could conclude that Pacesetter acted without probable cause and with malice. The evidence presented supports the other elements of malicious prosecution, suggesting a sufficient basis for granting certiorari review. Almon would grant the petition for further examination of these issues.