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
Managing an increasing volume of cases and court deadlines– sometimes in multiple jurisdictions – is one of the biggest time management challenges for law firms. . A Tennessee lawyer was suspended and put on probation after failing to file a personal injury case. The statute of limitations ran out due to his forgetting the deadline.
Judge Thomas Parker, a judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Friday ruled that Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA) is unconstitutional. In his opinion, Parker ruled that the AEA violates First Amendment rights. Parker previously enjoined the AEA in April.
When appealing a trial court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a case under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), the appeal “must be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order.”. The TPPA is Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP statute, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”
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. §
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviews very few cases in a given year. In the year ending June 30, 2020 (the last period for which information is publicly available) the High Court was asked to accept review in 569 cases. The court then awarded the homeowner her attorney fees in the amount of $3,600 pursuant to Tenn.
Regarding the permanence of plaintiff’s injury, the Court found that plaintiffs’ experts had testified to some permanence for both his leg and back and his cognitive injuries, and that the medical testimony was “corroborated by [plaintiffs’] respective testimony that [plaintiff’s] physical and cognitive symptoms have not improved since the accident.”
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). This ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal. In Charles v. McQueen , No.
7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” manufactured by “Jack Daniel’s,” the toy refers to a “Bad Spaniel” that makes “Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” On dilution (under the federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act), the court held that VIP was protected by an exception for “noncommercial” uses.
HCLA statute of limitations for claim against doctor and hospital began to run on same date. Defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the one-year limitations period for this HCLA claim began to run on October 31, 2017 when plaintiff learned that the screws had been inserted incorrectly.
Where defendant received a citation for violating a Tennessee municipal ordinance in a car accident, the one-year statute of limitations applied. The limitations period was not extended to two years under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(2) because the municipal code violation was not a criminal charge or criminal prosecution. Carey , No.
Borden argued that the enhancement did not apply because one of the three prior offenses that the government relied on was a conviction under Tennessee law for reckless aggravated assault. United States , the Supreme Courtruled that the residual clause is so vague that it is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be enforced.
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.
The TennesseeCourt of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. Pursuant to the language of the statute, the trial court had held that plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed because they were based on allegations of reckless conduct. In Lawson v.
The Court noted that plaintiff’s only evidence that the cap was dangerous was the evidence of her own fall and the fall of the alleged other unnamed homeowner, and that “[n]egligence cannot be presumed by the mere happening of an injury or accident.” internal citation omitted). Code Ann. § This opinion was released 1.5
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. ,
Defendant argued that plaintiffs knew about the alleged conversion in October 2009 and that the claim was therefore time-barred, but the trial court found that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the father’s death. On appeal, this ruling was reversed. Code Ann. §
Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
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 continued its analysis by pointing out that one of its prior decisions supported dismissal in this case. In Gilbert v. State , No. In Dotson v. State , No.
More than two weeks after the order of dismissal was entered, defendants filed a “combined motion to alter or amend and petition to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act” (TPPA). voluntary dismissals in Tennessee. Rule 41.01 internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted).
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.
When that friend could not find a Tennessee lawyer to take her case before the statute of limitations ran out, he sent her a sample pre-suit notice form. Note: Chapter 45, Sections 3, 9 and 12 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
The issue on appeal was “whether it was permissible for the trial court to look beyond the power of attorney for health care and examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document in 2012 in order to determine whether [the brother] was competent at that time.” National Health Corp. , 3d 876 (Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
Plaintiff attempted to rely on additional documents referred to in the SCES manual to support a finding of duty, but the Court noted that the Manual specifically referred to these additional documents in an attempt to provide proper pruning methods, not to add to defendant’s contractual duty. internal citations omitted).
The videotape does appear to satisfy the standard for the use of lethal force under Tennessee v. ” That language is derived from Tennessee v. The Tennesseestatute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects. Garner and other case law. Garner , 471 U.S.
While defendant urged the Court to “follow the modern trend taken in federal courts, which no longer requires renewal of a motion for directed verdict at the close of all the proof,” the Court declined to change long-standing Tennessee law. Accordingly, the Courtruled that, pursuant to Tenn.
Defendant doctors and defendant hospital filed motions to dismiss, alleging that the medical authorizations sent with plaintiff’s pre-suit notice were not HIPAA compliant, and that plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(c), making his suit untimely.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “Plaintiffs’ claims for medical battery and intentional misrepresentation were based on false statements the Defendants made to [plaintiff] before they established a doctor-patient relationship,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed this “temporal analysis” on interlocutory appeal.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds, the statute of limitations and “failure to plead facts to state a claim as required by Tenn. The trial court granted dismissal on both grounds, and because plaintiff failed to address the Rule 8.01 argument in her appeal, dismissal was affirmed.
Our General Assembly has made it clear by statute…that healthcare decision-making pursuant to a power-of-attorney in Tennessee requires specific authorization by healthcare power-of-attorney. …In The Court looked to a 2017 Tennessee Supreme Court Case, Beard v. Branson , 528 S.W.3d 3d 487 (Tenn. Branson , 528 S.W.3d
After discovery, DSS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial courtruled that plaintiff had asserted a premises liability claim, and that “DSS did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care under premises liability.” Plaintiff then amended his complaint to assert claims against DSS as well.
Perry County, Tennessee , No. The Tennessee Supreme Court “has adopted a planning-operational test to determine whether a decision is discretionary within the meaning of the GTLA,” explaining that “planning or policy-making decisions are immune from liability” while “operational decisions do not enjoy the same protection.”
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that product liability defendants “cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from products they did not make, distribute, or sell.” In Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc., E2017-01985-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. 4, 2021), plaintiff was the wife of a deceased employee of a chemical plant.
City of Algood, Tennessee , No. At the close of plaintiff’s proof, defendant moved for involuntary dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to TennesseeRule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2), 2), which the trial court granted. 2), the trial court did not err in considering the testimony of [plaintiff’s wife].”.
Based on the circumstances of this case and the application of the relevant statute, however, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court noted that Tenn. 56-7-135 is a burden shifting statute, and that plaintiff “did not assert that it successfully rebutted the statutory presumption.” Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
The Courtruled that this response was insufficient and that the statement was thus admitted, explaining: Rule 56.03 Accordingly, the Courtruled that the fact was admitted and defendant could not “be charged with actual notice.”. internal citations and quotations omitted). Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
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. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant based on the GTLA, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In Braylon W. Walker , No.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to mean that a plaintiff must “provide pre-suit notice to prospective health care defendants each time a complaint is filed.” This conclusion is most aligned with Tennessee law and public policy. Here, [defendants] received the Notice on April 25, 2019.
The trial court found plaintiff’s testimony that she was not involved in setting up the annuity and had no knowledge of it to be credible, and it ruled that defendant was liable for conversion. These rulings were affirmed on appeal. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No. E2020-00960-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citations omitted).
In this case, the first requirement was met when defendant agreed to pay $30,000 toward the judgment, as the Courtruled that this action “manifested an intent to treat the judgment as valid[.]”. While the Court agreed with plaintiff that Tenn. internal citation omitted). In Turner v. Turner , 473 S.W.3d 3d 257 (Tenn.
Dyer County Tennessee , No. The Court of Appeals first analyzed whether a special relationship was created by the deputy’s actions. Based on these findings, the Courtruled that plaintiff had not met the requirements of the first exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. In Kimble v. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
In its analysis, the Court took note of plaintiffs’ argument that the HCLA differentiates between the “claimant” and the “patient,” and that the statute requires the HIPAA authorization to include the name and date of birth of the patient, who in this case was the deceased child. internal citations omitted).
While plaintiff had attached “unrelated examples of medical releases and discovery requests from other cases” to her response to the motion to dismiss, there was “nothing in the record to suggest that the Trial Court considered these…in making its decision.” internal citation omitted).
Montana Department of Revenue , the Supreme Courtruled that although states are not required to subsidize private education, states that choose to do so cannot exclude religious schools from receiving funding simply because they are religious. Tennessee , a long-running dispute between the two states over groundwater in an aquifer.
Subsection (c) of this statute states that if the claim is denied by the DCRM, “the division shall so notify the claimant and inform the claimant of the reasons therefor and of the claimant’s right to file a claim with the claims commission within ninety (90) days of the date of the denial notice.” 9-8-402(c).” Code Ann. §
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