Kenneth J. Mynatt v. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 39
Syllabus
This case involves claims of malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), determining that the plaintiff could not prove that the underlying criminal prosecution had terminated in his favor, a necessary element of a malicious prosecution claim. Regarding the civil conspiracy claim, the court determined that the conspiracy claim was only actionable if the underlying tort were actionable. Having found that the malicious prosecution claim could not stand, the court concluded that the conspiracy claim had to be dismissed as well. The plaintiff timely appealed. Based upon the applicable standard of review, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claims, and we accordingly reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that when a magistrate issues a search warrant, the reviewing court’s function is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed
- holding that the discovery of marijuana and paraphernalia during a search of the defendant's garbage that reportedly occurred one month before the application for the warrant was too stale to provide probable cause to believe marijuana would be found in the defendant's house.
- rejection of good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied retroactively to case pending at the time Guzman was decided where probable cause lacking
- rejection of good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied retroactively to case pending at the time Guzman was decided where probable cause lacking
- retroactively applying Guzman to all cases that were not final when Guzman was issued, including cases that were in progress in the trial courts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.