Contract Statute Tennessee 
Day on Torts
MAY 5, 2021
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. In Affordable Construction Services, Inc.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
When a litigant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), that motion should be analyzed under the provisions of the TPPA rather than under the traditional Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 analysis. In Reiss v. Rock Creek Construction, Inc. , internal citation omitted).
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
JUNE 15, 2022
Although the State had contracted with a municipality for the maintenance of a state-owned highway, the State still bore “the ultimate responsibility for inspecting and maintaining [the highway],” and “the contract did not absolve the State of potential liability for failing to do so.” The Court rejected this argument.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
Defendant Wolf Tree (Wolf) filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty to plaintiffs because “its contract with SCES explicitly stated that it was not to prune service drops,” because “it had no statutory or common law duty,” and because “Plaintiffs could show no evidence of a negligent or intentional trespass or nuisance.”
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Where defendant physician was employed by a state university and received no personal gain from the clinical services she rendered at a hospital, and plaintiff had brought an HCLA action based on these hospital clinical services, summary judgment pursuant to defendant’s absolute immunity under the Tennessee Claims Commission Act was affirmed.
Day on Torts
MARCH 22, 2022
8, 2022), plaintiff’s husband and step-son owned a commercial electrical contracting business. When the business was unable to finish the work project, the company for whom the work was to be done enforced its contract with plaintiff and her husband and took possession of various properties owned personally by plaintiff and her husband.
Day on Torts
MAY 18, 2022
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. ,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content