Miles v. Paul Moak of Ridgeland, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRussell, J.
¶ 23. I agree with the majority’s holding regarding Miles’s malicious-prosecution claim. The majority also finds that the trial court properly granted Moak’s3 motion for summary judgment because Miles failed to establish the three elements necessary for an abuse-of-process claim. In my view, (1) Moak made an illegal use of a legal process; (2) it had an ulterior motive; and (3) damage resulted from its improper use of process. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 24. A trial court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951, 956 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2007).…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1987
- Hubbard v. WansleyMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
- Monsanto Co. v. HallMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
- McLain v. West Side Bone & Joint CenterMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
- Morton v. City of ShelbyCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.