Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miles v. Paul Moak of Ridgeland, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided September 18, 2012No. 2011-CA-00407-COAPublished

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

  1. Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Hubbard v. WansleyMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Monsanto Co. v. HallMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  4. McLain v. West Side Bone & Joint CenterMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Morton v. City of ShelbyCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API