William Whirl, Appellant, v. C. v. (buster) Kern and Fidelity and Deposit Company Ofmar... - 0 views
-
Nye Frank on 01 Mar 10Since Monroe v. Pape, supra, this Court has consistently avoided attaching any requirement of ulterior purpose or improper motive to the statement of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Cf. Nesmith v. Alford, 5 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 110; Pierson v. Ray, 5 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 213, reversed on other grounds, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288. Of course, when an essential element of the wrong itself under well established principles of tort law includes the demonstration of an improper motive as in malicious prosecution