who trigger the criminal prosecution of innocent persons, bears relevance to the case at bar because Plaintiff essentially argues that Mrs. MacDermid was innocent of criminal conduct and that she could not have been legitimately prosecuted had Discover carried out its threats to do so. To sustain a successful claim of malicious prosecution, in addition to showing the defendant brought the action with “malice” and that the underlying criminal prosecution terminated successfully in plaintiffs favor, one must demonstrate an absence of probable cause. Roberts v. Federal Express Corp., 842 S.W.2d 246, 247-48 (Tenn.1992) (involving an employee’s suit against his employer for causing his arrest for grand larceny); see Schlueter v. S. Energy Homes, Inc., 252 Fed. Appx. 7, 9 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Probable cause is established where “facts
recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that a necessary element for malicious prosecution under virginia law is lack of probable cause holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her holding the same for malicious prosecution