Talk:Malicious prosecution

Someone needs to fix this article. For whatever reason, the article is going on and on about the CALIFORNIA law, without ever mentioning the fact that it's California law. The article uses "Supreme Court" without explaining that it's the California Supreme Court (as seen from the citation). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

More bias from non US folks, in this case the UK

 * It also mentions "sixteen states" without specifying that it's US states that are meant. Malicious prosecution is part of other legal systems - the Canadian and English systems to name but two. I'm going to put a globalize tag on this article. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than put a globalize tag on the page why don't you simply clarify the article itself? I've read several of your edits and you quite clearly have some kind of a bias against Americans. Not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with--I'm an American and work with a bunch of Irish and have a bias against the UK, but that doesn't mean I need to plant a flag everywhere...I'd simply edit the article to be more approriate. Bush sure has given the haters an excuse to be pissed that they were'nt born in the US. I have edited the article to appropriately state what you failed to add and also removed the banner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.50 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about frivolous appeals
The article currently states:


 * [ . . . ] The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.

The article goes on to cite a California case regarding frivolous appeals.

With respect to frivolous appeals, should this language be modified? Is the purpose here to say that frivolous appeals are not an "abuse of process," but only for the purposes of evaluating whether the wronged party has a cause of action for malicious prosecution? I'm rusty on tort law.

Obviously, filing a frivolous appeal is an abuse of process in the sense that the courts, especially federal courts, may impose heavy monetary penalties on parties who file frivolous appeals. See Frivolous litigation. That's why I'm wondering whether the language in the article needs to be modified. However, perhaps someone who is more familiar with the law on the tort of malicious prosecution should have a first crack at it (??). Famspear (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)