Bearden v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-02088-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-11-2010
Opinion Author: Lamar, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Malicious prosecution - Termination of proceedings - Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-13-2008
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: William F. Coleman
Disposition: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.
Case Number: 2006-46

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JAY BEARDEN




THOMAS W. PREWITT, RONALD E. STUTZMAN, JR.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. KENNETH W. BARTON, BENJAMIN M. WATSON, THOMAS B. ALEXANDER  

    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: Malicious prosecution - Termination of proceedings - Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

    Summary of the Facts: Jay Bearden filed suit for malicious prosecution against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and Gloria Robison, their employee who signed an affidavit charging Bearden with cutting a telecommunications line. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants. Bearden appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: In order to prevail on a claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must show the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either criminal or civil; by, or at the insistence of the defendants; the termination of such proceeding in plaintiff’s favor; malice in instituting the proceedings; want of probable cause for the proceedings; and the suffering of damages as a result of the action or prosecution complained of. In this case, after criminal charged were filed against Bearden in circuit court for interference with a licensed telecommunications system, the circuit court reduced the charge to the misdemeanor violation of section 97-25-53 and transferred the case to justice court for disposition. Subsequently the justice court dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction. The issue in this case is whether the justice court’s dismissal of Bearden’s case for lack of jurisdiction constitutes a termination of proceedings in Bearden’s favor. The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that criminal proceedings are terminated in favor of the accused only when their final disposition is such as to indicate the innocence of the accused. Requiring a dismissal to reflect on the merits of a criminal action or the innocence of the accused comports with our public-policy considerations regarding claims of malicious prosecution. The dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction does not reflect on the merits of the criminal case against Bearden. The record is totally void of any indication of why the justice court concluded that it had no jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the order, which plainly cited the court’s lack of jurisdiction as the exclusive basis for dismissal, neither indicates Bearden’s innocence, nor is it inconsistent with Bearden’s guilt.


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