had probable cause to believe that she did. See Lincoln v. Shea, supra at 5 n.l. We therefore proceed to the usual inquiry whether the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff supports a finding that probable cause was lacking. 11 We have no occasion to compare “probable cause” for this purpose with “probable cause” justifying various actions in criminal prosecutions. 12 Cf. Burnham v. Collateral Loan Co., 179 Mass. 268, 275 (1901) (investigation unnecessary where it would be immaterial to crime suspected); Keefe v. Johnson, 304 Mass. 572, 578 (1939) (investigation unnecessary where there is no one of whom to inquire). 13 The test articulated by the Restatement is in accord with the law of a number of other jurisdictions. See Watzek v. Walker, 14 Ariz. App. 545, 548-549 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Kincaid, 335 So. 2d
holding that investigation was insufficient prior to prosecution for forgery of check holding a 24month sentence for forgery unconstitutional because it exceeded the maximum sentence that the defendant could have received for a more serious forgery conviction holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties holding that the fact that an indiana prosecutor was later designated a special deputy united states attorney for purposes of the federal prosecution was insufficient to establish a sham prosecution