This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Share Confirming expectations, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously denied Mississippi’s claim that Tennessee is stealing its groundwater. As the court confirmed last year in Florida v. The post Court unanimously favors Tennessee in groundwater dispute with Mississippi appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Tennessee does not recognize a common law cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. 14, 2024), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that there is no tort for wrongful foreclosure in Tennessee. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that no such claim exists in Tennessee. Wilmington Trust, N.A. ,
Tennessee is not only the Supreme Court’s first oral argument of the 2021-22 term, but it is also the first time that states have asked the court to weigh in on how they should share an interstate aquifer. The case will be argued on Monday, and it will be the court’s first in-person argument in a year and a half.
Share The first oral argument of the Supreme Court’s new term, Mississippi v. Tennessee , dealt with Mississippi’s claim that Memphis, Tennessee, is stealing Mississippi’s groundwater. He analogized Memphis’ pumping to Tennessee extending a physical pipe into Mississippi to extract its water.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has agreed to accept review of a comparative fault issue concerning the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Here is a copy of the court of appeals opinion in the case , decided on March 10, 2021. The case is Pryority Partnership v. AMT Properties, LLC , No. 2020-00511-SC-R11-CV.
Where plaintiff’s personal injury claim was based on a Tennessee car accident for which defendant was given a traffic citation for failure to exercise due care under Tenn. 55-8-136, which is a Class C misdemeanor, the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s action was extended to two years pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” replaces “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey.” All members of the court joined Kagan’s opinion finding that toy a condemnable infringement of the Jack Daniel’s marks. The lower court in this case thought that Rogers gave the dog toy a free pass because of the “communicative” aspects of the toy.
Where the trial court did not provide sufficient reasoning for its grant of summary judgment in a misrepresentation case, summary judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to the trial court. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently explained the analysis for whether a statute creates a private right of action. Plaintiff general contractor brought this action in chancery court, asserting that it had a private right of action pursuant to a Tennessee statute. Auto-Owners Insurance Company , No.
April 14, 2022), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against several defendants, including the State of Tennessee as the employer of Dr. Landry, who was allegedly negligent. The Court of Appeals began by looking at Tenn. The Court explained that § 29-26-115 requires HCLA plaintiffs to prove certain elements “in terms of the defendant.”
A provision of the GTLA allowing for the recovery of attorney’s fees by a governmental employee who was the prevailing party in a GTLA suit was constitutional and did not deprive plaintiff of her right to access the courts. The trial court also found alternative grounds for dismissal as to some defendants, including Ms. In Taylor v.
City of Clarksville, Tennessee , No. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Based on this language, the trial court ruled that immunity was not removed, but the Court of Appeals disagreed with this analysis. In Robinson v. Continue reading
Where plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in his defamation case before defendants filed their petition to dismiss under the TPPA, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ petition for dismissal and awarding them attorneys’ fees and sanctions after plaintiff’s nonsuit. voluntary dismissals in Tennessee. In Adamson v.
Ordinarily and subject to several important exceptions, the statute of limitations in Tennessee personal injury cases is one year. One exception to that rule is Tenn. 28-3-104(a(2), which addresses situations where the civil defendant faced criminal charges as a result of a incident giving rise to the cause of action.
Dyer County Tennessee , No. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, relying in part on the Public Duty Doctrine, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals first analyzed whether a special relationship was created by the deputy’s actions. In Kimble v. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant’s alleged statement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Note: Chapter 81, Section 4 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the HCLA required plaintiff to send a pre-suit notice before this second suit was filed, and the trial court agreed, dismissing the case. This conclusion is most aligned with Tennessee law and public policy. On appeal, dismissal was affirmed. Code Ann. § Internal citations omitted).
Where plaintiff knew on October 31, 2017 that her surgeon had wrongly positioned screws during a previous spine surgery, the statute of limitations for her Tennessee HCLA claims against the hospital defendants who allegedly employed the surgeon began to run on that day. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendants.
The trial court found, based on the testimony of the parties, that the purpose of the annuity was to ensure that the mother would eventually qualify for Medicaid benefits. After denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court held a bench trial. internal citation and quotation omitted). internal citations omitted).
Where plaintiff alleged that defendant doctor committed intentional misrepresentation and medical battery by stating that he was board-certified in plastic surgery when he was not, the TennesseeCourt of Appeals affirmed the ruling that these claims were not governed by Tennessee’s HCLA. In Cooper v. Mandy , No.
Plaintiff sent defendant pre-suit notice of his claim on August 28, 2021, then filed this complaint on November 18, 2021, asserting that defendant’s “negligence caused [patient] to develop pressure ulcers, skin impairment, and infection…” Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the suit was filed outside the statute of limitations.
The case is in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division. ” The complaint sets forth 25 causes of action, which include Failure to Train, Failure to Supervise, Fourth Amendment violations, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
One year and 21 days after the accident, the plaintiff filed this case under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act against the county that employed the firefighter, the fire department, and the estate of the firefighter, who was also killed in the accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. Booth , 344 S.W.3d
The TennesseeCourt of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. If this section is fulfilled and immunity is removed, courts considering a GTLA suit “proceed to another step in their analysis,” considering the public duty doctrine. In Lawson v. 29-20-205[.]”
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. With just a few weeks left before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and with only the October and November argument sittings filled, the court has switched into high gear. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
After decedent’s death, plaintiffs filed this suit in Tennessee, attempting to have the remaining settlement proceeds distributed as wrongful death proceeds rather than having them distributed under decedent’s will. The Court explained: Here, Decedent brought suit in West Virginia for personal injury and loss of consortium.
Plaintiff filed a civil action in general sessions court against the driver on March 3, 2017, but the driver had died on December 7, 2016. Plaintiff filed a “re-issued” civil summons in the sessions court on January 31, 2018, which was served on the defendant as the personal representative.
Perry County, Tennessee , No. After the shooting, plaintiff filed this suit against defendant Perry County claiming that “the deputy sheriff’s failure to investigate the death threats and arrest [husband] was the proximate cause of her injuries.” The Court reasoned: We conclude that the acts alleged in the complaint are operational.
Defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied, ruling that plaintiff had satisfied the elements of that claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that dismissal should have been granted. internal citation omitted). internal citations and quotations omitted). internal citation omitted).
A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. Again, the court agreed.
A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. Again, the court agreed.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Because the court was running a little behind this year and just released its last opinions on Thursday, the court also held the mop-up conference on Thursday, and the order list will be released Friday morning at 9:30 a.m.
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to adequately analyze the climate change and environmental justice impacts of two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on the Brownsville Shipping Channel in Texas and two pipelines that would carry LNG to one of the terminals. 20-1045 (D.C.
On June 15, 2023, the court issued the ultimate judgment not only on the torts claims but perhaps the state of our politics. Louis, a Missouri court was faced with a claim from Carly Munoz who in 2019 sent to Six Flags’ Fright Fest with her cousin. A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail.
Oregon Supreme Court Said Public Trust Doctrine Did Not Impose Obligation to Protect Resources from Climate Change. With respect to the scope of the doctrine, the Supreme Court said the public trust doctrine extends both to the State navigable waters and to the State’s submerged and submersible lands. (A FEATURED CASE. Chernaik v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content