LARRY E. PARRISH, ET AL. v. ROBERT S. MARQUIS, ET AL.
John J. Mulrooney, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellants/Appellees,
Larry E. Parrish and Larry E. Parrish, P.C.
Deborah C. Stevens and Summer H. Stevens, Knoxville, Tennessee, for
the Appellee/Appellant, Ronald C. Koksal.
Frank Q. Vettori, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee/Appellant,
Robert S. Marquis.
We granted this appeal to determine whether the dismissal of a legal
malpractice complaint because it was untimely and for lack of standing
constituted a "favorable termination," which is a required element of
a malicious prosecution cause of action. The Court of Appeals
concluded that the plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim was based
on a favorable termination of the legal malpractice action but granted
summary judgment to one defendant after determining there was no
genuine issue of material fact as to his involvement in the legal
malpractice claim. After reviewing the record and applicable
authority, we conclude that the plaintiffs' cause of action for
malicious prosecution was not based on a favorable termination because
the underlying legal malpractice complaint was dismissed on procedural
grounds that did not reflect on the merits. Since both defendants
were entitled to summary judgment, the Court of Appeals' judgment is
affirmed in part and reversed in part for the reasons stated in this
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY APPEALS
Court:TSC - Rules
BABAJIDE FAMILONI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS
Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Memphis, and Damon K. Griffin, Memphis, for
Julie Randall Pablo, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, for
defendant/appellee TheUniversity of Memphis
This case is about subject matter jurisdiction. A professor employed
by the University ofMemphis filed a lawsuit in chancery court against
the University, alleging claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act
and failure to execute a settlement agreement on his
discriminationclaims. The University filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, asserting that the chancery court did not have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear contract claims against an agency of the
State ofTennessee. The trial court granted the motion, finding that
it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint. We
affirm in part and reverse and remand, finding that thechancery court
has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for discrimination under
the Tennessee Human Rights Act.
JAMES O. MARTIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, James
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard H. Dunavant,
Assistant Attorney General; Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney
General; and Philip Morton, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Appellant, James O. Martin, appeals the denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Martin is
currently serving a twenty-two year sentence as a result of his jury
conviction for aggravated arson. On appeal, Martin argues that the
trial court erred "by failing to grant post-conviction relief."
Specifically, he argues that his conviction was unlawfully obtained as
a result of juror misconduct and bias of the juror at his trial.
After review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY LEE SILCOX
Robert W. Scott, for the appellant, Gary Lee Silcox.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner,
Assistant Attorney General; William Paul Phillips, District Attorney
General; and Michael O. Ripley, Senior Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Defendant, Gary Lee Silcox, was convicted of criminally negligent
homicide, aggravated assault, and theft of property valued over $1000.
The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of
ten years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence
is insufficient to sustain his conviction for criminally negligent
homicide; and (2) the trial court improperly ordered that the
Defendant's sentences run consecutively. Finding no reversible error,
we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Request for Clarification of Opinion No. 05-076 Regarding Public
Adjusters and the Practice of Law
Date: August 26, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-133
Distribution of Bond Proceeds Between City and County School Systems
Date: August 26, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-134
Tennessee School Board Association -- Eligibility to Participate in an
Insurance Trust Organized Under Tenn. Code Ann. SS 29-20-401, et seq.
Date: August 26, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-135