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
The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed that the filing of a TPPA petition to dismiss by a defendant does not bar a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a case. In addition to motions to dismiss, two defendants filed petitions to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). In Flade v. 3d —, No.
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 Solution: Integrated CourtRules.
The US Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that “reckless” crimes qualify as violent felonies for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case.
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.
The US Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear the case Starbucks Corp. McKinney , originally filed due to Starbucks’ firing of employees attempting to unionize , to determine the appropriate legal standard by which courts should review National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) preliminary injunction decisions.
It required congressional legislation to allow the dam to be finished after years in the courts where judges maintained that the species had to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Zygmunt Plater, an environmental law professor at Boston College, represented the snail darter before the Supreme Court. That was then.
“Supreme CourtRules Against Mississippi in Water-Rights Case; State had argued that the city of Memphis, Tenn., And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “ Supreme Court backs Tennessee in water rights dispute with Mississippi.” delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Mississippi v.
A Tennessee appeals court has unanimously ruled Tim Gilbert, a Black man convicted of aggravated assault and other charges by an all-white jury should get a new trial, saying that prosecutors failed to rebut a claim made by defense lawyers that the room where the jury deliberated was prejudicial to the man, reports the New York Times.
Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert refused to testify due to no fault of plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, the TennesseeCourt of Appeals ruled that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to secure a substitute expert. Sobel, but the trial court denied the motion. In Blackburn v. McLean , No.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently affirmed a premises liability judgment for the plaintiff based on an apartment complex failing to maintain a pedestrian bridge properly. The plaintiff filed a premises liability suit against the defendant apartment owner, and the trial courtruled in the plaintiffs favor.
New CourtRule Sets Available : TennesseeCourt of Appeals ( TNCOA ). Courts Removed. New York Supreme Court, 1st JD, New York County, Hon. New York Supreme Court, 1 st JD, New York County, Hon. The post February 1, 2022 CourtRules Update appeared first on American LegalNet.
Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Courtrules, the TennesseeRules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? That is why I created a new book that contains only the TennesseeRules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition).
Share A fractured Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a key phrase in the Armed Career Criminal Act, ruling that crimes involving recklessness do not count as “violent felonies” for the purpose of triggering a key sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed that decision on Thursday. Charles Borden Jr.
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. In the same fiscal year, the Court issued opinions in 63 cases. Summary by the Court of Appeals: .
Who needs to haul the Tennessee Supreme Courtrules, the TennesseeRules of Appellate Procedure, etc. to a trial court? That is why I created a new book that contains only the TennesseeRules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition).
In a unanimous decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) “removes immunity only for ordinary negligence,” not for gross negligence or recklessness. Hawkins County, Tennessee , No. The Court of Appeals reversed dismissal. In Lawson v. E2020-01529-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.
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 libel defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to the TPPA, which the trial court granted on December 10, 2020.
The trial court applied the statutory non-economic damages cap to reduce the award to $1,529,777, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a lengthy opinion. The Court pointed out that plaintiff had three lay witnesses and two expert witnesses testify as to causation. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.
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.
The Supreme Courtruled Thursday that prior convictions for crimes of reckless violence aren’t sufficient to trigger additional years of imprisonment for felons convicted of gun possession, reports the Wall Street Journal. Lower courts rejected his argument, and he was sentenced under the career-criminal law.
Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University , which was unfortunately not reviewed by the Supreme Court. As previously addressed by Keith Whittington, the case involved Professor Andrew Donadio who serves as the faculty advisor for the local chapter of Turning Point USA at Tennessee Tech University. of Trustees.
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 CourtRulings. As early as 1927, a Supreme Court cases, Tumey v.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday issued its opinion in CIC Services v. In an opinion released on the 2021 deadline for Americans to file their federal income taxes, the courtruled 9-0 that the AIA does not bar CIC’s pre-enforcement lawsuit challenging the IRS notice. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the court.
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.
Additionally, the Vermont Supreme Courtruled in 1802 that once crossed over into Vermont, a slave contract from another state was unenforceable. Evidence lies in both the constitutional language and judicial precedent. Article 1 of Vermont’s Constitution states “[t]hat all persons are born equally free and independent.”
Where plaintiff only presented proof that his property was damaged during shipment but did not present any proof sufficient to allow the trial court to assess his damages, involuntary dismissal was affirmed. After plaintiff closed his proof, defendants moved for dismissal, which the trial court granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
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. After a motion by the insurance company, the trial court bifurcated the trial, hearing evidence concerning only the coverage issue first and then addressing liability if needed.
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.
July 1, 2024 is the effective date for changes to the TennesseeRules of Civil Procedure and Evidence. That is why I created a new book that contains the up-to-date TennesseeRules of Civil Procedure and Evidence (Courtroom Edition). to a trial court? The book is in a 6 x 9 format. It weighs less than 20 oz.
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.” Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed on both counts. The main difference is that instead of describing “Old No.
Supreme Court'sruling that Title VII prohibits discriminatory job transfers left, how lower courts could decide how much transportation work can exempt workers from federal arbitration and a look at a workers' bid to unionize at a Volkswagen facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
That’s because current disclosure of litigation funding relies on a patchwork of state law, courtrules, self-reporting, FOIA requests, leaks to journalists, and funding pitches. Some, as noted above, have even banned the practice at common law, though state courts have increasingly relaxed those rules in favor of regulation. [23]
A finding of trespass requires a court to award nominal damages under Tennessee law. 12, 2024) (memorandum opinion), the Court of Appeals overturned a trial court’s refusal to award damages after a trespass finding. The trial courtruled that appellee trespassed but refused to award damages due to his “good faith.”
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.
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. On appeal, that ruling was reversed. The Court of Appeals began by looking at Tenn. Code Ann. §
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. A state trooper issued defendant a traffic citation listing three violations, including “failure to exercise due care, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-8-136.”
Defendants Goodall and the City both filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Regarding the claims against Goodall, the trial court had found in part that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of repose found in Tenn. . § internal citation omitted).
The evidence showed that in 2002, an HMA representative had rejected uninsured motorist coverage in Tennessee in a signed, dated document. This representative had “executed a new written rejection for Tennessee vehicles each succeeding year through 2010.” The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
Plaintiff responded by arguing that defendant had waived this argument and that there was material evidence to support the verdict, and the Court of Appeals agreed on both points. First, the Court of Appeals found that defendant waived his argument that the evidence supporting fraud was not legally sufficient.
The trial court eventually granted the motion for summary judgment, agreeing that defendant owed no duty here, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court began its negligence analysis by considering whether defendant owed a duty under the contract. Code Ann. §
After the complaint was filed, defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). The trial court denied the petition, finding the TPPA inapplicable to this case. In a first appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that defendant’s “filing of a Title IX complaint fell within the scope of the TPPA.”
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 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. § internal citation and quotations omitted).
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