article thumbnail

Plaintiff waived objection to discovery from testifying expert where objection was not made until expert deposition was in progress.

Day on Torts

In an HCLA case discovery dispute, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff’s testifying experts’ “notes, drafts, and communications with counsel” were discoverable under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and that plaintiff had waived any claim that the requested items were privileged. In Starnes v.

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). In Charles v. McQueen , No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. citing Tenn. Code Ann. §

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Tennessee Court of Appeals: HCLA plaintiff should have been allowed to substitute expert.

Day on Torts

Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert refused to testify due to no fault of plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court should have allowed plaintiff to secure a substitute expert. In Blackburn v. McLean , No. M2021-00417-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3225397 (Tenn.

Court 105
article thumbnail

Exclusion of HCLA expert based on locality rule affirmed.

Day on Torts

Where an HCLA plaintiff’s expert testified at his deposition that he was not very familiar with Kingsport and that he had only reviewed information about Kingsport the night before the deposition, rather than before forming his medical opinions, the trial court did not err by excluding the expert based on the locality rule.

Tort 59
article thumbnail

Denial of Tennessee uninsured motorist coverage affirmed.

Day on Torts

In his deposition, Mr. Tinnin stated that he bought the car for plaintiff, he intended it to be a wedding present for plaintiff, and that he purchased it for her personal use. Mr. Tinnin changed his testimony at trial and stated that he bought the car with the intention of flipping it, but the trial court did not credit this testimony.

article thumbnail

Justice Fines and Fees Violate Constitution: Paper

The Crime Report

The use of fines and fees to generate revenue for local justice systems constitutes a “predatory” relationship between law enforcement and citizens that violates the due process protections of the Constitution, according to a Tennessee Law Review paper. Supreme Court Rulings. As early as 1927, a Supreme Court cases, Tumey v.

Court 98
article thumbnail

Vegetation management contractor had no duty to remove tree located beyond scope of contract with electrical service.

Day on Torts

The contract incorporated the terms of the SCES Manual, and looking at those two documents plus the deposition testimony from witnesses, the Court found that trees of a certain size and trees located beyond the 10-foot right of way were to be removed “at the sole discretion of SCES or SCES Project Representative.”