Court Opinion

ID: 9567215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:50:43.619709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:25.902851
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
concurring specially. I would reverse, based on the specific reason pointed out in Judge Pannell’s special concurrence. This, of course, goes only to the subject matter of the counterclaim based on abuse of process and the punitive damages related thereto. It does not go to the main action by the plaintiff who sought to recover possession of the land; this issue was properly decided in favor of the defendant. The judgment in the case should read affirmed in part and reversed in part; *554that is, affirmed as to the jury verdict against the plaintiff on her cause; reversed as to the award of damages to the defendant.