LESA C. WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. RENARD A. HIRSCH, SR. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 26, 2011)
This application for an interlocutory appeal concerns a client's standing to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the amount of fees to be paid to one of the three attorneys who represented her in a personal injury suit. The trial court dismissed the client's complaint for lack of standing but granted the client permission to appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that an interlocutory appeal will prevent needless, expensive and protracted litigation. We also conclude that the client has a real interest in the litigation, and we thus reverse the trial court's order dismissing the client's complaint.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/williamsl_012611.pdf
Showing posts with label Interlocutory appeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interlocutory appeal. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Court Reviews A Case Involving an Employee’s Accident on a Railroad
CLAYTON WARD v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. January 20, 2011)
Plaintiff, a railroad employee, filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging that his left ankle injury was caused by his working conditions. The railroad filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment but subsequently granted the railroad's motion for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We granted the railroad's application for an interlocutory appeal and now affirm the trial court's decision to deny the motion for summary judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wardc_012011.pdf
Plaintiff, a railroad employee, filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging that his left ankle injury was caused by his working conditions. The railroad filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment but subsequently granted the railroad's motion for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We granted the railroad's application for an interlocutory appeal and now affirm the trial court's decision to deny the motion for summary judgment.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/wardc_012011.pdf
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Court Reviews a Wrongful Death Case, and Issues Regarding Immunity, Against the Memphis Housing Authority
CHERYL BROWN GIGGERS, ET AL. v. MEMPHIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 14, 2010)
This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a fatal shooting of a tenant at a Memphis public housing property. This Court granted Appellant, Memphis Housing Authority's, Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal to address the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of the Appellant.
Finding that Appellees' "failure to evict" claim is preempted by 47 U.S.C. section 1437, and that Appellant retains its sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellant. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/giggersc_121410.pdf
This is the second appeal of this wrongful death action, arising from a fatal shooting of a tenant at a Memphis public housing property. This Court granted Appellant, Memphis Housing Authority's, Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal to address the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of the Appellant.
Finding that Appellees' "failure to evict" claim is preempted by 47 U.S.C. section 1437, and that Appellant retains its sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellant. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/giggersc_121410.pdf
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Court reviews various issues regarding disclosing the amount of damages in a medical malpractice case.
AMANDA ELLIOTT v. R. MICHAEL COBB (Tenn. September 23, 2010)
The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action is prohibited from arguing or suggesting to the jury any monetary amounts for non-economic damages. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26- 117 (2000) prohibits the plaintiff from disclosing the amount of damages requested in the plaintiff's pleading, but does not preclude the plaintiff from arguing or suggesting monetary amounts for non-economic damages to jurors at trial. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/elliota_092310.pdf
KOCH concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/elliota_CON_092310.pdf
The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action is prohibited from arguing or suggesting to the jury any monetary amounts for non-economic damages. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26- 117 (2000) prohibits the plaintiff from disclosing the amount of damages requested in the plaintiff's pleading, but does not preclude the plaintiff from arguing or suggesting monetary amounts for non-economic damages to jurors at trial. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/elliota_092310.pdf
KOCH concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2010/elliota_CON_092310.pdf
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
TWCA Reviews Whether an Independent Contractor is Entitled to Workers’ Compensation Benefits
JOSEPH SCOTT RICHARDSON v. JAMES BROWN CONTRACTING, INC. d/b/a JAMES BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY ET AL (TWCA August 18, 2010)
The owner and operator of a tractor-trailer filed a workers' compensation claim against a common carrier for injuries that he incurred while attempting to verify a load to transport to another location. The trial court ruled that the owner/operator, while an independent contractor, was entitled to workers' compensation benefits by virtue of a written contract between the parties extending coverage, as permitted by statute. The trial court reserved judgment on the award and permitted an interlocutory appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and referred it to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the judgment is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the disposition of the remaining issues.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/richardsonj_081810.pdf
The owner and operator of a tractor-trailer filed a workers' compensation claim against a common carrier for injuries that he incurred while attempting to verify a load to transport to another location. The trial court ruled that the owner/operator, while an independent contractor, was entitled to workers' compensation benefits by virtue of a written contract between the parties extending coverage, as permitted by statute. The trial court reserved judgment on the award and permitted an interlocutory appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and referred it to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the judgment is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the disposition of the remaining issues.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2010/richardsonj_081810.pdf
Labels:
Contractor,
Interlocutory appeal,
TWCA,
Workers' Compensation
Friday, May 28, 2010
Court considers an issue of uninsured motorist coverage in an interlocutory appeal
RANDALL D. KISER v. IAN J. WOLFE & CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. May 28, 2010)
This interlocutory appeal considers an issue of uninsured motorist coverage following an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Randall D. Kiser was permanently injured. The plaintiff was working within the scope of his employment, driving for a towing company, when his truck was struck by Defendant Ian J. Wolfe's vehicle. The defendant driver tendered his liability policy limits to the plaintiff and is not a party to this appeal. The employer towing company was insured by Defendant Consumers Insurance Company. In anticipation of arbitration for determination of damages and liability, the insurance company moved for partial summary judgment.
The trial court denied summary judgment but granted the insurance company permission for an interlocutory appeal to determine two issues, on which we hold:
(1) On a policy of vehicle insurance, the statutory requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2) for a written rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits or written selection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits lower than liability limits is met when the insured signs an application containing a lower selection but neglects to initial a block provided for that purpose; and
(2) the insurer bears the burden of proof to show that the insured signed an insurance contract application containing a stated limit of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but once that burden has been met, the insured must raise any issue that the insurer obtained the insured's signature unlawfully under Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2).
We vacate the trial court's denial of the insurance company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of this holding.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/kiserr_052810.pdf
This interlocutory appeal considers an issue of uninsured motorist coverage following an automobile accident in which Plaintiff Randall D. Kiser was permanently injured. The plaintiff was working within the scope of his employment, driving for a towing company, when his truck was struck by Defendant Ian J. Wolfe's vehicle. The defendant driver tendered his liability policy limits to the plaintiff and is not a party to this appeal. The employer towing company was insured by Defendant Consumers Insurance Company. In anticipation of arbitration for determination of damages and liability, the insurance company moved for partial summary judgment.
The trial court denied summary judgment but granted the insurance company permission for an interlocutory appeal to determine two issues, on which we hold:
(1) On a policy of vehicle insurance, the statutory requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2) for a written rejection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits or written selection of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits lower than liability limits is met when the insured signs an application containing a lower selection but neglects to initial a block provided for that purpose; and
(2) the insurer bears the burden of proof to show that the insured signed an insurance contract application containing a stated limit of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, but once that burden has been met, the insured must raise any issue that the insurer obtained the insured's signature unlawfully under Tenn. Code Ann. section 56-7-1201(a)(2).
We vacate the trial court's denial of the insurance company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of this holding.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/kiserr_052810.pdf
Friday, February 26, 2010
Court dismisses case based on Plaintiff's incapacity to sue
SAM McCORMICK v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2009)
In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in allowing the executor of the plaintiff's estate to be substituted as the party plaintiff where the party plaintiff died before suit was filed in his individual capacity. We are also asked to determine whether the defendant waived the issue of plaintiff's capacity by first raising the issue in a post-answer motion to dismiss. We find that a suit brought in the name of a deceased person amounts to a nullity, and thus, is not amenable to substitution. We further find that an objection based on the fact that the plaintiff was deceased when the complaint was filed can be made at any time during the proceedings, in any appropriate manner, and such objection stops the cause at whatever stage it may be, whenever made known to the court.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/mccormicks_051909.pdf
In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in allowing the executor of the plaintiff's estate to be substituted as the party plaintiff where the party plaintiff died before suit was filed in his individual capacity. We are also asked to determine whether the defendant waived the issue of plaintiff's capacity by first raising the issue in a post-answer motion to dismiss. We find that a suit brought in the name of a deceased person amounts to a nullity, and thus, is not amenable to substitution. We further find that an objection based on the fact that the plaintiff was deceased when the complaint was filed can be made at any time during the proceedings, in any appropriate manner, and such objection stops the cause at whatever stage it may be, whenever made known to the court.
The full text of this opinion may be found at the TBA website:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2009/mccormicks_051909.pdf
Labels:
Incapacity to sue,
Interlocutory appeal,
TRCP 12,
TRCP 9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)