Texas Skaggs, Inc. v. Graves

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · 1979 · Torts

582 S.W.2d 863 (1979)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsMalicious prosecutionprobable causemalicefavorable terminationinstitution of criminal proceedingshot checkintent to defraud

Facts

Graves, a former Skaggs employee, wrote two small grocery checks that were later returned for insufficient funds after her separated husband withdrew the funds from their shared account. After being contacted, Graves told Skaggs she would pay when she received money from the Skaggs credit union, and Skaggs's ledger reflected it was waiting on that money; Graves then mailed a money order to cover the checks before Skaggs filed its affidavit for her arrest. Skaggs nevertheless initiated and continued a prosecution under the Arkansas Hot Check Law, and Graves was arrested in the store even though Skaggs had already received payment. After the arresting officer learned the checks had been paid and released her, an unidentified Skaggs employee said Skaggs still wanted Graves prosecuted, and the municipal court later dismissed the case when the prosecution could not produce the checks.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a malicious prosecution judgment against Skaggs, including proof that Skaggs instituted and continued the criminal proceeding, that the proceeding terminated in Graves's favor, that probable cause was absent, that Skaggs acted with malice, and that the damages award should stand.

Rule

Under Arkansas law, malicious prosecution requires: (1) a criminal prosecution instituted or continued by the defendant against the plaintiff; (2) termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused; (3) absence of probable cause; (4) malice; and (5) damages. Probable cause exists only when the prosecutor knows facts, or receives credible information, that would induce a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, and did induce the prosecutor to believe, that the accused was guilty. A dismissal or abandonment of the prosecution is a favorable termination when it ends the particular proceeding so that further prosecution would require new process, and lack of probable cause may permit an inference of malice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Little Rock, Nora Kim was charged after a bookstore employee swore out a complaint over an allegedly fraudulent payment. At the first court setting, the city attorney dismissed the charge because the complaining witness could not produce the underlying receipt and would need to file a new complaint to pursue the matter again.

If Nora later sues the bookstore for malicious prosecution under the rule applied in this case, which is the strongest argument that the favorable-termination element is satisfied?

Explanation. The majority treated dismissal or abandonment as a favorable termination when the particular proceeding has ended and cannot be revived without new process or other official action. An acquittal is not required. A dismissal for lack of available incriminating evidence can qualify if it reflects abandonment of that proceeding.