Remove 2020 Remove Diligence Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Tennessee HCLA Case Dismissed under Statute of Limitations.

Day on Torts

Where a patient left the hospital with known pressure ulcers and no wound treatment plan, the statute of limitations for his HCLA (health care liability act, formerly known as medical malpractice) claim related to those skin wounds began to run on the day he was discharged from the hospital. In Jackson v. This ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Statute 59
article thumbnail

Dismissal partially reversed based on fraudulent concealment.

Day on Torts

Plaintiff asserted various claims against defendants, including breach of contract, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligence, all of which the trial court dismissed as untimely pursuant to the three-year statute of limitations applicable to claims of injuries to real property. In Simpkins v. John Maher Builders, Inc. , 28-3-105.)

Tort 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Compensatory damages equal to amount plaintiff paid for home affirmed in fraud case.

Day on Torts

Where there was material evidence to show that plaintiff met her required due diligence, the jury verdict for plaintiff on her intentional misrepresentation and fraud claim was affirmed. While defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence to show that plaintiff did her due diligence, the Court disagreed.

article thumbnail

The Curious Ethical Case of Kevin Morris

JonathanTurley

Then had this telling exchange: Q Was that loan agreement, that [sic] in place in January of 2020 when you first began giving loans out to Hunter Biden? It’s your testimony that in January of 2020, when you first began giving loans to Hunter Biden, there was no written loan agreement in place at that time, correct? Mr. Morris.

Lawyer 50
article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” After Developers Terminated Methanol Terminal Project, Ninth Circuit Granted Motions to Dismiss Appeals.

Court 45
article thumbnail

April 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

In Minnesota, the district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. s consumer protection statute. On March 26, 2021, the court denied Exxon’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of the remand order. Continental Resources, Inc.

Court 115