Remove Legal Remove Litigation Remove Prima Facie Case Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Dismissal of Defamation and False Light Claim under Tennessee Public Participation Act partially reversed.

Day on Torts

Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.

article thumbnail

WHAT IS ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION?

JayS.Rothman&Associates

Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. Where the statute doesn’t directly prohibit associational retaliation, courts have also given broad interpretations that favor protection for the associates of whistleblowers. Employees who do suffer such actions may have a legal cause of action.

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

Proper analysis for petition to dismiss under Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA).

Day on Torts

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. , E2021-01513-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 16559447 (Tenn.

article thumbnail

No Mandamus Relief in Privilege Ruling

Patently O

The court found that Dorel had established a prima facie case that Cozy’s founder, Dr. Arjuna Rajasingham, “manipulated the PTO into recognizing priority dates to which he was not entitled” and “relied on the advice of his counsel to perpetrate a fraud on the PTO.” quoting Mohawk Indus., Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100 (2009).

article thumbnail

Denial of Natural Justice as a Defence to Enforcement of a Chinese Judgment in Australia

Conflict of Laws

The Chinese Judgment recorded that: ‘[t]he defendant [Yin] failed to attend despite having been legally summoned to attend. Efthrim AsJ considered that the statement in the Chinese Judgment that Yin had ‘been legally summoned to attend’ was enough to defeat the natural justice defence: [2022] VSC 729, [74]–[79].