Day on Torts

JANUARY 11, 2021

Dyer County Tennessee , No. The Court of Appeals first analyzed whether a special relationship was created by the deputy’s actions. Based on these findings, the Court ruled that plaintiff had not met the requirements of the first exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. In Kimble v. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.

Cause of Action 59

Cause of Action Tort Court Statute 59

Day on Torts

APRIL 29, 2021

The Tennessee Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to mean that a plaintiff must “provide pre-suit notice to prospective health care defendants each time a complaint is filed.” This conclusion is most aligned with Tennessee law and public policy. Here, [defendants] received the Notice on April 25, 2019.

Tort 59

Tort Cause of Action Statute Court 59

Day on Torts

AUGUST 9, 2021

Defendant implied in his brief that a check could not be considered “tangible personal property,” but the Court quickly pointed out that “conversion of checks is actionable” in Tennessee, as “checks designate specific amounts of money for use for specific purposes.” internal citations omitted). internal citation omitted).

Divorce 59

Divorce Cause of Action Statute Diligence 59

Day on Torts

FEBRUARY 18, 2021

Where plaintiff knew on October 31, 2017 that her surgeon had wrongly positioned screws during a previous spine surgery, the statute of limitations for her Tennessee HCLA claims against the hospital defendants who allegedly employed the surgeon began to run on that day. Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital , No. M2020-00029-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. “The

Statute 64

Statute Cause of Action Diligence Court 64

Day on Torts

MARCH 10, 2021

Where plaintiff alleged that defendant doctor committed intentional misrepresentation and medical battery by stating that he was board-certified in plastic surgery when he was not, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that these claims were not governed by Tennessee’s HCLA. In Cooper v. Mandy , No.

Government 59

Government Healthcare Court Cause of Action 59

JonathanTurley

OCTOBER 30, 2023

The court ruled against her and found that the park’s duty was only to “make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and that Munoz “ was aware of the risk she encountered, and expected to be surprised, startled, and scared.” particularly those with ravenous monkeys. or houses near him.

Tort 47

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 47

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Tennessee Valley Authority , No. Missouri v. Biden , No.

Litigation 40

Litigation Litigating Court Laws 40