## Facts

- F. G. Pence was a licensed private detective in the District of Columbia and required a license renewal to continue working.
- During marital discord involving Melvin and his former wife, the wife hired Pence to follow Melvin.
- Pence encountered Melvin and Elna N. Smith as they left an apartment; when asked who he was, Pence displayed a badge bearing his name and the words “Washington Detective Agency.”
- Pence denied representing that he was affiliated with the Metropolitan Police Department or the “Washington Detective Bureau.”
- Melvin and Smith each submitted affidavits to police officials stating that Pence represented himself as being from the “Washington Detective Bureau,” implying impersonation of a police officer.
- Based on the affidavits, the Superintendent of Police recommended nonrenewal of Pence’s detective license, and the Secretary of the Commissioners notified Pence that his license would not be renewed.
- Pence appealed to the License Denial and Revocation Board, which reversed and directed renewal, ending the licensing matter in Pence’s favor.
- Pence then sued Melvin and Smith in an action in the nature of malicious prosecution, alleging they acted maliciously and without probable cause; a jury awarded $1,250.
- On appeal, the record was limited, and the appellate court treated the jury’s findings on disputed facts, malice, and lack of probable cause as settled for purposes of review.

## Issues

1. Whether an action in the nature of malicious prosecution may be maintained when the predicate proceeding is administrative rather than a traditional judicial proceeding.
2. Whether damages in such an action may include mental anguish and injury to reputation.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment for Pence.
- The court held that a malicious-prosecution-type claim is not categorically barred merely because the predicate proceeding was administrative; qualifying administrative proceedings may suffice.
- The court upheld jury instructions permitting damages for mental anguish and injury to reputation.

## Legal Principles

- Malicious-prosecution-type liability may arise from initiation of administrative proceedings that function in a quasi-judicial manner and carry serious consequences, including interference with the ability to pursue an occupation.
- In assessing whether an administrative matter can serve as the predicate, courts look to substance and effect (including deprivation of livelihood and the character of the allegations), not only formal labels.
- Damages in malicious prosecution actions may include non-economic harms such as mental suffering and reputational injury, particularly where the accusation implies criminal misconduct.
- Where the appellate record does not fairly present disputes over malice, probable cause, or key facts, appellate review may be confined to the legal sufficiency of the cause of action and the permissible scope of damages.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict for a licensed detective whose license renewal was denied after private parties filed affidavits accusing him of police impersonation, holding that quasi-judicial administrative licensing proceedings can support a malicious-prosecution-type claim and that recoverable damages include mental anguish and reputational harm.


Melvin v. Pence, 130 F.2d 423 (D.C. Cir. 1942)