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
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). In Charles v. McQueen , No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. The TPPA, Tenn. 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. , quoting Tenn. Code Ann. §
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 primafaciecase for each essential element of the claim in the legal action,” dismissal was affirmed.
While a plaintiff faced with a TPPA petition to dismiss could not make out a primafaciecase 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.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the BPR decisions on the matter “were res judicata and Plaintiff had failed to establish a primafaciecase of legal malpractice.” Note: Chapter 64, Section 5 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
While the TPPA did apply to the case, the plaintiff employee met his burden of showing a primafaciecase of defamation and the related torts alleged. In Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention , No. E2024-00100-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
In Tennessee, “the employee of an independent contractor enjoys the status of an invitee while performing work on the premises of the owner-contractee.” Focus Designs filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, finding that plaintiffs had not shown that the injury was foreseeable. On appeal, the dismissal was reversed.
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