Remove Court Remove Prima Facie Case Remove Tennessee
article thumbnail

Dismissal of Defamation and False Light Claim under Tennessee Public Participation Act partially reversed.

Day on Torts

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). Here, the first issue was whether the TPPA applied to the facts of this case. In Charles v.

article thumbnail

Court of Appeals releases first opinion addressing Tennessee Public Participation Act.

Day on Torts

When defendant filed a petition to dismiss a defamation case under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), and plaintiff failed to respond by “establish[ing] a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action,” dismissal was affirmed. In Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. 20-17-101 et.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Proper analysis for petition to dismiss under Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA).

Day on Torts

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. The Court of Appeals quoted Tenn. In Reiss v. Rock Creek Construction, Inc. ,

article thumbnail

Defamation claim allowed to proceed under TPPA.

Day on Torts

While a plaintiff faced with a TPPA petition to dismiss could not make out a prima facie case for his false light invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, his defamation claim related to an allegedly false Title IX rape complaint was allowed to proceed. M2023-00045-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.

article thumbnail

Legal Malpractice Claim Filed More than One Year after BPR Complaint was Untimely.

Day on Torts

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the BPR decisions on the matter “were res judicata and Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice.” After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

article thumbnail

Dismissal Based on Lack of Foreseeability Reversed.

Day on Torts

Focus Designs filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, finding that plaintiffs had not shown that the injury was foreseeable. In Tennessee, “the employee of an independent contractor enjoys the status of an invitee while performing work on the premises of the owner-contractee.” On appeal, the dismissal was reversed.