[I]f the manner of termination, including dismissal, reflects negatively on the merits of the case, it will be considered favorable to the defendant.... More specifically, if the dismissal somehow indicates that the defendant is innocent of wrongdoing, it will be considered a favorable termination.... On the other hand, if the reason for dismissal is “not inconsistent” with a defendant’s wrongdoing, it will not be considered a favorable termination.... If the circumstances surrounding dismissal are ambiguous on this point, the determination should be left for trial. Parrish, 172 S.W.3d at 531 (quoting Siliski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 174 Vt. 200, 811 A.2d 148, 151-52 (2002) (citations omitted)). See also Sewell v. Par Cable, Inc., 1988 WL 112915, at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. M.S., Oct. 26, 1988) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). The order of voluntary
holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that only malicious prosecution requires a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings and that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process accrue on the date of arrest holding that a dismissal in the interest of justice was a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious prosecution action where the courts reasons for dismissing the criminal charges were not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused holding that for the purposes of a malicious prosecution action a favorable termination must be one indicating that the accused is innocenta disposition that does not indicate the plaintiffs innocence is not considered a favorable termination  holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment