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 Tennesseelawyer was suspended and put on probation after failing to file a personal injury case. While the lawyer had every intention of refiling within one year, that date was stored only in his memory. The statute of limitations ran out due to his forgetting the deadline.
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. §
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently explained the analysis for whether a statute creates a private right of action. Plaintiff general contractor brought this action in chancery court, asserting that it had a private right of action pursuant to a Tennesseestatute. In Affordable Construction Services, Inc.
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.
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 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. 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 Tennessee law. 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).
Note: Chapter 25, Section 10 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. §
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
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
When that friend could not find a Tennesseelawyer 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.
Note: Chapter 28, Section 11 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 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.
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.
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.
Coffee County, Tennessee , No. Note: Chapter 41, Section 7 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. In Vaughn v.
While there were no Tennessee cases directly on point, the Court of Appeals explained that this case “share[d] similarities with cases involving a landlord who leases property to a tenant who maintains a vicious dog on the property.” Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law ? Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law?
The biggest takeaway here is the Court’s ruling that defendant did not have a duty to remove the tire debris from the interstate, as this is the first Tennessee case to address this issue. Note: Chapter 30, Section 1 and Chapter 73, Section 6 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
Note: Chapter 89, Sections 4 and 10 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 40, Section 1; Chapter 42, Section 2; Chapter 46, Section 2; and Chapter 47, Sections 1 and 2 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.
Note: Chapter 89, Section 1 and Chapter 30, Section 4 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.
The Court next considered plaintiff’s argument that defendant Wolf owed a statutory duty to remove the tree because Tennessee has adopted the National Electric Safety Code, with Tenn. Note: Chapter 30, Section 1 and Chapter 82, Section 1 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
Tennessee Justice Programs has released it Fall 2020 on-demand video seminar CLE programs. Former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Joe Riley, and I started Justice Programs almost 20 years ago. United States Supreme Court Review (Part 2) & Civil and Criminal Procedure. (1
City of Algood, Tennessee , No. At the close of plaintiff’s proof, defendant moved for involuntary dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(2), BirdDog Law also provides Tennesseelawyers with free access to user-friendly versions of the Tennessee rules of evidence and procedure.
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. internal citation omitted). The jury also awarded plaintiff punitive damages in this case.
City of Franklin, Tennessee , No. The trial court granted summary judgment under this statute, finding that plaintiff could not prove liability due to these exceptions, and review of this issue was waived on appeal. The statute at the core of the appeal was Tenn. In Mitchell v. M2021-00877-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4841912 (Tenn.
Note: Chapter 25, Section 10 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 81, Section 4 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.
PI Tennessee, LLC , No. Note: Chapter 29, Section 2 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. In Harrill v.
of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires that ‘each disputed fact…be supported by specific citation to the record,’ yet [plaintiffs] cited no facts in the record to support their response. Note: Chapter 89, Sections 1 and 10 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
Where a patient left the hospital with known pressure ulcers and no wound treatment plan, the statute of limitations for his HCLA (health care liability act, formerly known as medical malpractice) claim related to those skin wounds began to run on the day he was discharged from the hospital. In Jackson v. This ruling was affirmed on appeal.
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.” In Laferney v.
25, 2022), the patient underwent a hysterectomy at a hospital in Kingsport, Tennessee. An HCLA expert witness must be licensed to practice in Tennessee or a contiguous bordering state “during the year preceding the date the alleged injury…occurred.” In Jackson v. Thibault , No. E2021-00988-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 14162828 (Tenn.
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