Remove Laws Remove Legal Remove Prima Facie Case Remove Statute
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.

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.

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

These protections help safeguard employees against discrimination or retaliation which the law may not otherwise prohibit. What laws protect employees against associational discrimination? Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. 12112(b)(4).

article thumbnail

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

Day on Torts

6) standard, which challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence, and requires the court to construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” quoting Tenn. Code Ann. §

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 Clark v. United States , 289 U.S.

article thumbnail

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

Conflict of Laws

The agreement was seemingly contrary to Chinese law, which may have contributed to the clandestine character of communications underlying the agreement; see [30]. The Chinese Judgment recorded that: ‘[t]he defendant [Yin] failed to attend despite having been legally summoned to attend.