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
Where plaintiff brought a tort action against defendant based on defective products made pursuant to a contract between the parties, dismissal based on the economic loss doctrine was affirmed. The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to manufacture these drinks, and problems began early in the relationship. In Vidafuel, Inc.
Discussion has re-emerged in Tennessee regarding the economic loss rule, a judicially-created remedy that precludes contracting parties from pursuing tort remedies for purely economic.
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. ,
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.
Although plaintiff labeled his complaint as a tort claim, the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute over “the amount, time and manner of payment of plaintiff’s pension plan benefits.” Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Code Ann. §
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.”
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.
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.
The Court pointed out that there is no Tennessee caselaw supporting the argument that “a lease or bailment was sufficient to meet the final element of conversion…,” but that caselaw instead “confirms that, in the typical case, the true owner of a property subject to a bailment is the bailor, not the bailee.” internal citation omitted).
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.
City of Clarksville, Tennessee , No. This suit followed, asserting several contract and property claims, as well as a tort claim for intentional interference with business relationships. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In Robinson v.
Goodall had contracted with a construction company to build the sidewalk, which was substantially completed in September 2006. Note: Chapter 41, Section 7 and Chapter 89, Sections 1 and 6 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in TennesseeTort Law has been updated to include this decision.
The homeowner who had hired the roofing company had entered into a separate contract with DSS, an equipment company, and rented scaffolding from them. Note: Chapter 89, Section 1 and Chapter 30, Section 4 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in TennesseeTort Law has been updated to include this decision.
Where defendant doctor was an employee of a governmental entity and plaintiffs failed to name the employer in their HCLA suit, dismissal under the Tennessee GTLA was affirmed. WTMG is a governmental entity under the definitions in the Governmental Tort Liability Act. In Braylon W. Walker , No. W2020-00692-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Defendant relied on the fee agreement that bore plaintiff’s signature, which stated that the associate time would be $350/hour and defendant’s time would be $375/hour, and the trial court found that this contract was valid, as plaintiff had no proof of the alleged forgery. internal citation omitted). Inman , 974 S.W.2d 2d 689 (Tenn.
As a diehard Cubs fans (and the fan personally responsible for breaking the Billy Goat curse before the World Series in 2016), the lawsuit from former Cub and World Series MVP Ben Zobrist brings together the Cubs and torts. In Tennessee, the tort tracks the common law elements. Allied Inv. 2d 270, 274-75 (Tenn.
bankruptcy, class action, trademark, securities, and tort litigation, to the tune of $50 to $100 billion in investments annually. [10] 23] Such laws are already on the books in Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, some of which limit the amount and type of funding entirely. [24]
After also affirming the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to continue and motion to amend, and well as affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant on his breach of contract counterclaim, the trial court’s ruling was affirmed in whole. This opinion was released two months after oral arguments in this case.
In Tennessee, “the employee of an independent contractor enjoys the status of an invitee while performing work on the premises of the owner-contractee.” In Thompson v. Southland Constructors , No. M2019-02060-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. On appeal, the dismissal was reversed. internal citation omitted). internal citation and quotation omitted).
The federal district court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed on standing grounds a lawsuit asserting that the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) environmental review for rate changes that affected rates for distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar did not satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
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