McGuffie v. Herrington, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01337-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01337-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-23-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part

Additional Case Information: Topic: False imprisonment, False arrest, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Civil conspiracy, Simple negligence, & Malicious prosecution - Statute of limitations
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2006
Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court
Judge: Mike Smith
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Case Number: 04-303B

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WANZA MCGUFFIE




CLARENCE MCDONALD LELAND



 

Appellee: RAY HERRINGTON AND JO ANN HERRINGTON W. BRADY KELLEMS JOSEPH PRESTON DURR  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: False imprisonment, False arrest, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Civil conspiracy, Simple negligence, & Malicious prosecution - Statute of limitations

Summary of the Facts: Wanza McGuffie filed suit against Ray Herrington and Jo Ann Herrington alleging false imprisonment, false arrest, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, simple negligence, and malicious prosecution. The court granted summary judgment on behalf of the Herringtons. McGuffie appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: False arrest and false imprisonment are similar torts that share a one-year statute of limitations. Unlike McGuffie’s malicious prosecution claim, which ripened only when she was finally acquitted of the last charges against her, the false arrest and false imprisonment claims ripened much earlier and, due to the statute of limitations, were no longer viable when McGuffie filed her complaint against the Herringtons. The one-year statute of limitations also applies to and bars McGuffie’s claim of civil conspiracy. A one-year statute of limitations also bars McGuffie’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although McGuffie’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim survived the statute of limitations, it was still properly dismissed at summary judgment because she failed to produce any genuine issue of material fact regarding the claim. Specifically, McGuffie produced no evidence whatsoever, in her pleadings or any other documents, indicating that she has suffered any demonstrative harm as a result of the Herringtons’ actions. McGuffie’s simple negligence claim is indistinguishable from her malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the simple negligence claim survives only in the form of McGuffie’s malicious prosecution claim. The statute of limitations did not run on the malicious prosecution claim until July 9, 2004, one year after McGuffie was acquitted of the last charges against her. Therefore, McGuffie’s malicious prosecution claim, filed on July 8, 2004, was timely. McGuffie also provided a genuine issue of material fact regarding her malicious prosecution claim. The Herringtons made no further argument about malicious prosecution beyond the statute of limitations argument except that McGuffie relied only upon the allegations of her pleadings. While the evidence McGuffie produced regarding malicious prosecution was far from robust, it was sufficient to overcome the significant hurdle that a party must overcome for summary judgment.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court