Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Erica Slaughter v. Rosetta Rowe
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2001-00840-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; February 24, 2002; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Erica R. Slaughter filed a lawsuit against Rosetta Rowe for slander and harassment, stemming from an alleged physical altercation related to Slaughter's affair with Rowe's husband. Following the incident, Slaughter pressed assault charges against Rowe, which were ultimately dismissed. Rowe countered with a claim of malicious prosecution, asserting that Slaughter's complaint led to her wrongful arrest. During the trial, both parties presented their accounts of the events. The Trial Court found that neither party met the burden of proof for their claims, resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit. Rowe appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. Slaughter, representing herself, alleged that Rowe threatened her life and used profanity at her workplace, while Rowe maintained that Slaughter initiated the altercation and had falsely accused her, leading to her arrest. The case highlights issues of credibility and the consequences of personal disputes on legal proceedings. The Trial Court dismissed both the complaint and counter-complaint after determining that neither party proved their claims of slander, assault, malicious prosecution, or false arrest by a preponderance of the evidence. Rowe appealed, arguing that the Trial Court erred in concluding she did not meet the burden of proof for her malicious prosecution claim. The appellate review of factual findings is de novo but carries a presumption of correctness unless the contrary is shown. The Trial Court based its decision on the live testimonies of Rowe and Slaughter, assessing the credibility of the witnesses directly. Appellate courts give considerable deference to the trial court's credibility determinations and will not reevaluate them without clear evidence to the contrary. The appellate review found no reversible error in the Trial Court's factual determination that Rowe failed to prove her claim. Consequently, the Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for any necessary further proceedings, with costs assessed against Rowe and her surety.