Remove Court Remove Legal 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

Legal Malpractice Claim Filed More than One Year after BPR Complaint was Untimely.

Day on Torts

Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.

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

WHAT IS ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION?

JayS.Rothman&Associates

For example, courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of their associates’ race, gender, religion, and/or national origin. Iona College, a federal appellate court explained the rationale for reading associational discrimination into Title VII. In Holcomb v.

article thumbnail

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

Day on Torts

The trial court denied the TPPA motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed this denial, which was vacated on appeal due to the trial court’s use of the wrong analysis. The Court of Appeals quoted Tenn. quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-105(a)(b); additional citation omitted). internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted).

article thumbnail

No Mandamus Relief in Privilege Ruling

Patently O

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cozy, Inc. seeking to set aside a district court discovery order piercing attorney-client privilege. Because attorney-client privilege is typically so strongly protected by the legal system, the exception is typically narrowly construed.

article thumbnail

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

Conflict of Laws

In Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130 , the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside a judgment [1] which had affirmed the enforcement a Chinese judgment by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. [2] On 13 October 2017, Wu commenced a proceeding against Yin in the Ningbo People’s Court.