Zike v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.
646 F.3d 504
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Zike was a former Advance America manager in Moberly, Missouri.
- He was terminated in March 2007 after Richardson, his supervisor, cited poor performance.
- Shortly after termination, Richardson and others noted four missing checks tied to customers’ postdated payments.
- A bank visit by Zike to verify funds occurred the day before termination; Richardson asserted he took the checks.
- A police investigation led to a grand jury-style probable-cause finding and a later nolle prosequi; Zike then sued for malicious prosecution and false arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause and prima facie evidence at preliminary hearing | Zike argues the magistrate's probable-cause finding was obtained via false testimony and should be rebutted | Advance America relies on the magistrate's binding-over finding as prima facie evidence of probable cause | Probable cause presumed; Zike failed to rebut the presumption. |
| False arrest based on probable cause | Zike contends absence of probable cause supports false-arrest claim | Arrest was supported by probable cause under Missouri law | Affirmed summary judgment; no false-arrest claim where probable cause existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 786 F.2d 854 (8th Cir. 1986) (test for probable cause in malicious-prosecution context; standard we apply)
- Moad v. Pioneer Fin. Co., 496 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1973) (prosecutor's sworn complaint required for prima facie evidence; sworn instrument governs)
- Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 166 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. 1942) (probable-cause presumption can be overcome only by showing falsity/illegitimate procurement)
- Huffstutler v. Coates, 335 S.W.2d 70 (Mo.1960) (recognizes prima facie evidence from magistrate; limits rebuttal avenues)
- Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (minor inconsistencies do not rebut probable-cause presumption)
- Randol v. Kline's, Inc., 49 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. 1932) (illustrates burden of proof on rebutting presumptions)
- Cassady v. Dillard Dep't Stores, 167 F.3d 1215 (8th Cir. 1999) (polls public policy; strict proof required in malicious-prosecution actions)
- Fust v. Francois, 913 S.W.2d 38 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (explains how probable-cause determinations can be rebutted)
- Police Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Mummert, 875 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. 1994) (recognizes elements of malicious prosecution; need lack of probable cause)
- Dodson v. MFA Ins. Co., 509 S.W.2d 461 (Mo. 1974) (probable-cause standard referenced by Missouri courts)