# Pera v. Kroger Co.

> Tennessee Supreme Court · August 13, 1984 · 674 S.W.2d 715

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775786

## Case

- **Full name:** Gina PERA, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant, v. the KROGER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Valley Fidelity Bank & Trust Company, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 13, 1984
- **Citations:** 674 S.W.2d 715; 1984 Tenn. LEXIS 828
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Brock
- **Judges:** Harbison, Fones, Cooper, Dro-Wota, Brock
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775786

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[i]t is well settled in the law of torts that even though one has probable cause to initiate criminal charges, there can be liability for the malicious continuation of a criminal proceeding”
- stating that “the gravamen[3] of an action, rather than its designation as an action for tort or contract, determines the applicable statute of limitations”

## Opinion text

BROCK, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion of the Court respecting the action against the bank, but I dissent insofar as the action against Kroger is concerned. It is my view that on the facts as stated in the majority opinion a jury issue was clearly made out on the malicious prosecution count and on the defamation by “checkfax” count. I would therefore revise the judgments of the lower courts dismissing the action against Kroger and remand for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775786. Public record. Not legal advice.