Peggy and Lester further allege that the bare fact that Kinchen worked for the Rusk County Attorney at the time of the incidents amounts to evidence that she was maliciously prosecuting them. Access beautifully interactive analysis and comparison tools. Then, the phone call from Lester after the meeting had begun could be interpreted by a reasonable person as threatening not only to the safety of Swetland and Kinchen, but to the entire Chapter. "You won't forget me. " TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT. Swetland, Kinchen, and Eastern Star filed a no evidence motion for summary judgment contending that Peggy and Lester had failed to produce any evidence of specified elements of the three torts pled. As a result, we will not reach the summary judgment evidence Peggy and Lester offered regarding the remaining elements of this tort. LIGHT DINNER MEAL – Work Session. A plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit must establish: (1) the commencement of a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) causation (initiation or procurement) of the action by the defendant; (3) termination of the prosecution in the plaintiff's favor; (4) the plaintiff's innocence; (5) the absence of probable cause for the proceedings; (6) malice in filing the charge; and.
See Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S. 2d 61, 63 (Tex. Forbes v. Lanzl, 9 S. 3d 895, 898 (Tex. Because these issues are dispositive of this appeal, we need not consider Peggy and Lester's remaining issues. Grand Lodge of Texas. It is organized into local chapters across the State of Texas. The summary judgment evidence showed that Swetland had been "frightened" as a result of the incidents which had been initiated by Peggy and Lester. Easy to change colors. On July 29, 1996, the Chapter held a trial, formally expelling Peggy and Lester from Eastern Star. District 2, Section 6 Eastern Star Chapters. Search for: Search Button. A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he: (1) initiates communication by telephone and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion or proposal that is obscene; or (2) threatens by telephone, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of his family, or his property.
We are not required to ascertain the credibility of affiants or to determine the weight of evidence in the affidavits, depositions, exhibits and other summary judgment proof. That presumption disappears once a plaintiff produces evidence that the motive, grounds, beliefs and other evidence upon which the defendant acted did not constitute probable cause. Afterwards, the Rusk Police Department responded to a disturbance call from the lodge. San Gabriel Lodge #89) STATED MEETING. To be extreme and outrageous, conduct must be so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Some time between 7:00 and 7:30 p. that evening, Peggy and Lester entered the lodge to deliver papers to Kinchen who was Worthy Matron of the Chapter at that time.
Absolutely love this one. "I'm with you lady for your life. " Because we conclude, as will be explained below, that the trial court properly granted the no evidence portion of the motion for summary judgment, we need not address these contentions. My customer is extremely pleased. Peggy and Lester then left the lodge. Under the no evidence summary judgment rule, a party may move for summary judgment if, after adequate time for discovery, there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial. The probable cause determination asks whether a reasonable person would believe that a crime had been committed given the facts as the complainants honestly and reasonably believe them to be before the criminal proceedings were initiated. Actions for malicious prosecution are not favored in law. An individual who works for a law enforcement agency is not precluded by that employment from reporting criminal activity to the appropriate officials when they have probable cause to believe that criminal activity has occurred. The motion must be granted unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Because Peggy and Lester have failed to offer clear and convincing affirmative proof of slander, the trial court correctly granted a no evidence summary judgment on this cause of action.
In their fourth issue, Peggy and Lester contend that the trial court erred in determining there was no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional distress which created a fact issue for a jury to determine. See Forbes, 9 S. 3d at 900. "I'm going to get the whole bunch. " Panel consisted of Davis, C. J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.