Court Rules Depositions Tennessee 
Day on Torts
AUGUST 22, 2022
Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert refused to testify due to no fault of plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to secure a substitute expert. In Blackburn v. McLean , No. M2021-00417-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3225397 (Tenn.
Day on Torts
MARCH 10, 2023
In an HCLA case discovery dispute, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff’s testifying experts’ “notes, drafts, and communications with counsel” were discoverable under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and that plaintiff had waived any claim that the requested items were privileged. In Starnes v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Where plaintiff real estate professional brought an action for defamation and false light based on an online review written by defendant, defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). In Charles v. McQueen , No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. citing Tenn. Code Ann. §
The Crime Report
MARCH 30, 2022
The use of fines and fees to generate revenue for local justice systems constitutes a “predatory” relationship between law enforcement and citizens that violates the due process protections of the Constitution, according to a Tennessee Law Review paper. Supreme Court Rulings. As early as 1927, a Supreme Court cases, Tumey v.
Day on Torts
JULY 23, 2021
In his deposition, Mr. Tinnin stated that he bought the car for plaintiff, he intended it to be a wedding present for plaintiff, and that he purchased it for her personal use. Mr. Tinnin changed his testimony at trial and stated that he bought the car with the intention of flipping it, but the trial court did not credit this testimony.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 31, 2022
Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert testified at his deposition that he was not very familiar with Kingsport and that he had only reviewed information about Kingsport the night before the deposition, rather than before forming his medical opinions, the trial court did not err by excluding the expert based on the locality rule.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 24, 2020
Regarding the first two elements, the trial court found that Dr. Gunnerson had testified that defendant breached the standard of care not by failing to intubate the patient, but by failing “to have a plan to address [the patient’s] condition[.]” The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with this interpretation.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
105 
Let's personalize your content