Lively v. Donald Dunning, D.D.S., Inc., 2013 Ohio 1350

Lively, a longtime receptionist at Dunning, was suspected of theft by Dunning and Rosemary.
Suspicions were reported to Parma Heights Police Detective Kunker, who pursued criminal charges against Lively.
The bank later reported an error: $700 accounted for, but $300 remained unaccounted; criminal trial proceeded to verdict.
The bench trial acquitted Lively of the charge; Lively then sued the Dunning defendants in civil court for malicious prosecution and IIED.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Dunning defendants, dismissing Lively's claims.
Appellate review is de novo; material facts are construed in Lively’s favor on summary-judgment motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malicious prosecution requires malice and lack of probable cause	Lively argues genuine issues exist as to malice and probable cause.	Dunning argues there was probable cause and no malice.	Summary judgment improper; triable issue on malice/probable cause.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress standard	Dunning’s conduct toward Lively was extreme/outrageous given the relationship and facts.	Initiating police reports is not extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law.	Summary judgment improper; genuine issue of material fact.

Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 114 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 2007) (malice and lack of probable cause elements for malicious prosecution)
Trussell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1990) (probable cause standard for malicious-prosecution claim)
Melanowski v. Judy, 102 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1921) (weighing conduct of defendant in light of circumstances when instituted)
Epling v. Pacific Intermountain Exp. Co., 55 Ohio App.2d 59 (Ohio App.2d 1977) (probable cause and lack of necessity for conviction not required for initiation)
Pierce v. Woyma, 8th Dist. No. 94037, 2010-Ohio-5590 (8th Dist. 2010) (probable cause in malicious-prosecution analysis; indictment not dispositive)