No specific laws identified for this ruling.
This case involves claims of malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), determining that the plaintiff could not prove that the underlying criminal prosecution had terminated in his favor, a necessary element of a malicious prosecution claim. Regarding the civil conspiracy claim, the court determined that the conspiracy claim was only actionable if the underlying tort were actionable. Having found that the malicious prosecution claim could not stand, the court concluded that the conspiracy claim had to be dismissed as well. The plaintiff timely appealed. Based upon the applicable standard of review, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's claims, and we accordingly reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Union Member's Lawsuit Against Union Fails in Court
Kenneth Mynatt, a member of a federal employees' union, sued his own union claiming they maliciously prosecuted him and conspired against him. Mynatt alleged the union wrongfully pursued criminal charges against him and worked together to harm him through these legal actions.
The Tennessee court dismissed Mynatt's entire case before it went to trial. The judge ruled that Mynatt couldn't prove a key requirement for his malicious prosecution claim - that the criminal case against him had ended in his favor. Without being able to show the prosecution terminated favorably, his malicious prosecution claim failed. The court also threw out his conspiracy claim, explaining that since the underlying malicious prosecution claim wasn't valid, the conspiracy claim based on it couldn't succeed either.
What this means for workers: This case shows how difficult it can be to sue your own union for malicious prosecution. Workers need to understand that even if they believe their union acted wrongfully in pursuing legal action against them, they must be able to prove the criminal case ended in their favor to have a valid claim. Union members should also know that conspiracy claims typically depend on having a valid underlying legal claim to support them.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.