Remove Court Remove Punitive Damages Remove Statute Remove Tennessee
article thumbnail

Compensatory damages equal to amount plaintiff paid for home affirmed in fraud case.

Day on Torts

The jury found defendant liable for intentional misrepresentation and awarded plaintiff $243,000 in compensatory damages, which was the purchase price of the home, and $250,000 in punitive damages. First, the Court of Appeals found that defendant waived his argument that the evidence supporting fraud was not legally sufficient.

article thumbnail

Chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defamation tort claims.

Day on Torts

Where the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was his tort claim for defamation seeking unliquidated damages, the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and the case should have been transferred to circuit court. The trial court denied the motion and ultimately found for plaintiff. In Lowery v.

Tort 59
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

Certifying Questions To State Supreme Courts – Lessons from Lindenberg

SquirePattonBoggs

And even though the circuit grants less than 20% of such motions, the questions still have to be accepted by the state supreme court. 2018), which held that Tennessee’s statutory cap on punitive damages violates the state constitution. But the certification process is often a rough road. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins.

Court 45
article thumbnail

Judgment for damages void where defendant was not served with amended omplaint.

Day on Torts

Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed in May 2009 and sought $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. Defendant was never served with this amended complaint, but the trial court entered a final judgment awarding plaintiff $3 million in total damages in August 2017. In Turner v.

article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Oregon Supreme Court Said Public Trust Doctrine Did Not Impose Obligation to Protect Resources from Climate Change. With respect to the scope of the doctrine, the Supreme Court said the public trust doctrine extends both to the State navigable waters and to the State’s submerged and submersible lands. (A FEATURED CASE. Chernaik v.