Day on Torts

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

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.

Statute 59

Statute Tort Cause of Action Diligence 59

Day on Torts

FEBRUARY 18, 2021

HCLA statute of limitations for claim against doctor and hospital began to run on same date. Defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the one-year limitations period for this HCLA claim began to run on October 31, 2017 when plaintiff learned that the screws had been inserted incorrectly.

Statute 64

Statute Cause of Action Diligence Court 64

Day on Torts

MARCH 30, 2021

Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. §

Statute 59

Statute Cause of Action Court Rules Diligence 59

Day on Torts

AUGUST 9, 2021

Further, the trial court found that plaintiff had satisfied the elements of fraudulent concealment such that the three-year statute of limitations was tolled and the case was not time-barred. The Court next analyzed defendant’s claim that the conversion case was barred by the statute of limitations. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No.

Divorce 59

Divorce Cause of Action Statute Diligence 59

LexForti

NOVEMBER 5, 2021

This study aims to explore these changes and assess the scope and judicial interpretation of amendment of pleadings in Civil procedure with a doctrinal legal research method by using primary sources like cases, statutes, legal commentary and reports. Keywords- Amendment of Pleadings, Civil Procedure Code 1908. Introduction.

Diligence 52

Diligence Cause of Action Court Litigation 52

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 2, 2021

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” Living Rivers v. Hoffman , No. 4:19-cv-00057 (D. Utah June 21, 2021). In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 44

Court Statute Litigation Litigating 44