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
A federal judge in Tennessee on Friday temporarily blocked a controversial law that would have imposed strict limits on drag performances in the state. The post Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennesseelaw restricting drag performances appeared first on JURIST - News. Judge Thomas L. The pause is subject to extension.
A US appeals court on Thursday dismissed a challenge to a Tennesseelaw that restricts drag performances, reversing a lower court’s decision that blocked the law from taking full effect. The only thing that is clear about this law is that it’s firmly rooted in hate and defies the will of the majority of Tennesseans.
Desmond sent a letter to event organizers, local politicians, local law enforcement and owners of facilities booked for use by the festival questioning whether Blount County Pride would violate the AEA. The post US federal judge sides with Tennessee Pride festival in challenge to drag ban appeared first on JURIST - News.
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. Any law or policy that infringes on a fundamental right must pass strict scrutiny. He stated that free speech does not extend to just words.
First, the Claims Commissioner ruled that the claim was “barred by § 70-7-102(a) of Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute, which protects landowners, including the State of Tennessee, from responsibility for injury to recreational visitors.” In Victory v. State , No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Since its creation by Congress during the New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a quasi-governmental power company that provides electricity to rural areas in seven southeastern states, has wound up before the Supreme Court on a number of occasions – most recently in 2019. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.
Where plaintiff filed a products liability claim based on a hip replacement device she had received, but her hip replacement occurred more than ten years before her suit was filed, dismissal based on the statute of repose was affirmed. In Jones v. Smith & Nephew Inc. , W2021-00426-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 767709 (Tenn. Code Ann. §
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Tennesseelaw limiting drag shows on constitutional grounds. Putting that concern aside, I have serious free speech concerns over the reach of these laws. Federal district judge Thomas Parker granted an injunction on the ground that the Tennesseelaw is vague and overly broad.
The trial court noted that “the facts regarding [defendant attorney’s] agreement to bifurcate damages were referenced in various motions leading up to the entry of final judgment,” and accordingly dismissed the action based on the statute of limitations. On appeal, dismissal was affirmed.
Where defendant governmental entity did not own the park where plaintiff was injured, and plaintiff was attending a concert in the park when she fell, summary judgment based on both the GTLA and Recreational Use Statute was affirmed. The Court next turned to whether summary judgment was appropriate under the Recreational Use Statutes.
Where a car accident plaintiff filed suit against the other driver’s insurance company within the statute of limitations, but failed to add the other driver as a party until two days after the statute of limitations had run, dismissal was affirmed. In Haywood v. Trexis Insurance Corp., W2020-00418-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. citing Tenn.
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. §
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. , internal citation omitted).
Yesterday the Tennessee Supreme Court remanded a Davidson County Chancery Court case to the trial court to determine the amount of fees that should be awarded after a successful motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The statute at issue is Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c). In Donovan v.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviews very few cases in a given year. There are other types of cases that the Court is required to hear.) Given the case selection criteria in discretionary review matters and the types of appeal-as-of-right cases, each opinion is highly likely to materially impact Tennesseelaw. Code Ann. §
The sole issue on appeal was “whether the jury’s verdict [was] contrary to the law or evidence.” Note: Chapter 25, Section 10 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
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). Because the TPPA is a relatively new statute, it has not been interpreted in many opinions.
A man was shot Thursday in Espanola, New Mexico during a protest over the reinstallation of a statute of the conquistador Juan de Onate , who massacred and enslaved the Acoma Indigenous people in 1599. The removal of controversial statues across the US has been challenged legally with mixed results in Texas , Tennessee and Louisiana.
Where plaintiff wife failed to give written notice of her loss of consortium claim against the State of Tennessee to the Division of Claims and Risk Management, dismissal of her claim was affirmed, despite the fact that her complaint was filed with the Claims Commission within the statute of limitations. In Kampmeyer v. State , No.
Defendant argued that plaintiff’s claim could not stand because it was “premised solely on vicarious liability, but the underlying claims against the alleged agents were barred by the statute of limitations at the time suit was filed against [defendant].” When a statute conflicts with the common law, the statute prevails. ….
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.
Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
Further, where the other defendant was added as a party after the statute of limitations had run, summary judgment for that defendant was also affirmed. Looking first to defendant Varangon, the Court noted that although this was an HCLA case, “Tennessee courts have previously stated that [Tenn. In Waller v. W2019-02211-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
The other is the continuing lack of public access to the law. We can never fully resolve the access to justice crisis unless we also resolve the lack of free and open access to the law. For many with legal problems, simply knowing the law and their rights is the first step toward achieving a resolution.
Borden argued that the enhancement did not apply because one of the three prior offenses that the government relied on was a conviction under Tennesseelaw for reckless aggravated assault. Charles Borden Jr. pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and the government sought the sentencing enhancement under ACCA.
2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” replaces “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey.” Kagan rests her analysis on two basic points of trademark law, summarized emphatically at the beginning and reiterated at the end of her opinion. That statute has an exception that protects competing uses if their use of the mark is “noncommercial.”
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. Accordingly, Goodall could only be liable if it “undertook a duty to maintain or warn about a dangerous condition on the sidewalk beyond the four-year statute of repose.” Code Ann. §
Where “application of the operation-of-law exception would bar a vicarious liability claim that is timely filed within the [HCLA’s] extended statute of limitations solely because the statute of limitations had expired for any claims against the principal’s agents, the exception must give way to the [HCLA].” In Ultsch v.
The same organization that successfully sued Harvard University over its affirmative action policies targeted McDonald's with a lawsuit in Tennessee federal court Sunday over its Latino scholarship program, arguing it violates a federal statute governing equal rights under the law.
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. , 28-3-105.)
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff failed to file her complaint within the three-year statute of repose. Defendant filed a new motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiffs’ various informed consent claims were barred by either the statute of repose or the statute of limitations. Rule 56.04
After all defendants filed motions to dismiss, the trial court entered an order dismissing all claims, finding that all the claims were based on the premise that the adoption process was illegal under Tennesseelaw, but that it was not. Plaintiff argued that the statute did not apply to Ms. Reid and CRMC. Code Ann. §
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.”
To be liable for civil trespass in Tennessee, the alleged tortfeasor does not have to intend to enter the property of another; he or she can commit trespass while believing the property is his or her own and only needs to intentionally be on the land. In Barrios v. Simpkins , No. M2021-01347-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 16846642 (Tenn.
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. internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted). Rule 41.01
The Court noted that the “issue of whether [defendant’s] statements were relevant or pertinent to the declaratory judgment action is a question of law, as is the ultimate question of whether the absolute litigation privilege applies.” internal citation omitted). Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
Later, he filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process and the statute of limitations. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04 lays out the proper process for service of a lawsuit in Tennessee. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Continue reading
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. This case reaffirmed what seems to be settled law in HCLA cases—that pre-suit notice sent to the wrong defendant will not satisfy the requirements of the HCLA.
Here, the State argued “that it owed no duty to Plaintiff because it delegated responsibility for maintaining the relevant portions of [the highways] to the City of Kingsport under Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 54-5-201 and -203.” The Court rejected this argument. Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
Note: Chapter 82, Section 1 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law contains summaries of leading cases on over 500 topics and citations to more than 1500 additional cases.
Note: Chapter 41, Section 8 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law contains summaries of leading cases on over 500 topics and citations to more than 1500 additional cases.
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. Note: Chapter 46, Section 2 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. In Gilbert v. State , No.
Where defendant driver stated that the accident that injured plaintiff passenger was due to her swerving to avoid a wild animal that unexpectedly entered the roadway, and plaintiff “presented no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant,” summary judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In Owings v.
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