GEOFFREY TODD KRASNER v. JOHN ARNOLD (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)
This appeal involves claims of defamation. After words were exchanged in the course of a parenting dispute, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant father of the plaintiff's girlfriend's daughter. A bench trial was held in which both parties were self-represented. The trial court held in favor of the defendant father. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/krasnerg_122811.pdf
Tennessee Personal Injury Law Blog - published by Bryan L. Capps and Stephen A. Burroughs. The Law Office of Stephen A. Burroughs – proudly serving clients throughout East Tennessee.
Showing posts with label pro se. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro se. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Court Reviews Whether the Statute of Limitations Barred the Transfer of a GTLA Claim to the Proper Venue
JOHN HAYNES v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2011)
The issue in this matter is whether Tenn. Code Ann. section 16-1-116 ("the Transfer Statute") tolls the running of the statue of limitations when a claim under the Government Tort Liability Act is filed in a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the court transfers the case to a court with jurisdiction.
Acting pro se, the plaintiff filed a GTLA claim in the general sessions court of Rutherford County; the civil warrant was filed prior to the running of the one-year statute of limitations for a GTLA claim. Because subject matter jurisdiction over GTLA claims is limited to the circuit court, the sessions court transferred the case. The circuit court held that, because the sessions court lacked jurisdiction, the transfer itself was invalid; therefore, the action was not effectively filed until it was transferred to the circuit court. However, the date of transfer was beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations for GTLA claims; thus, the circuit court dismissed the case as time barred.
We have determined this case is not time barred because, under the Transfer Statute, the statute of limitations was tolled when the civil warrant was timely filed in sessions court and, because it was timely filed, the sessions court was authorized to transfer the case to the circuit court. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the case and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/haynesj_062811.pdf
The issue in this matter is whether Tenn. Code Ann. section 16-1-116 ("the Transfer Statute") tolls the running of the statue of limitations when a claim under the Government Tort Liability Act is filed in a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the court transfers the case to a court with jurisdiction.
Acting pro se, the plaintiff filed a GTLA claim in the general sessions court of Rutherford County; the civil warrant was filed prior to the running of the one-year statute of limitations for a GTLA claim. Because subject matter jurisdiction over GTLA claims is limited to the circuit court, the sessions court transferred the case. The circuit court held that, because the sessions court lacked jurisdiction, the transfer itself was invalid; therefore, the action was not effectively filed until it was transferred to the circuit court. However, the date of transfer was beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations for GTLA claims; thus, the circuit court dismissed the case as time barred.
We have determined this case is not time barred because, under the Transfer Statute, the statute of limitations was tolled when the civil warrant was timely filed in sessions court and, because it was timely filed, the sessions court was authorized to transfer the case to the circuit court. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the case and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Full opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/haynesj_062811.pdf
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Received Sufficient Time to Procure Representation and Expert Testimony in a Medical Malpractice Case
KATHY D. PARTEE V. JAIME VASQUEZ, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 6, 2011)
A woman who suffered prolonged bleeding, pain and disabling injury after gynecological surgery filed a pro se malpractice suit against the doctor who performed the surgery.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit in which he testified that in his treatment of the plaintiff he complied at all times with the relevant standard of acceptable professional practice. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to find an expert witness to controvert that affidavit.
The trial court granted the plaintiff several continuances to give her the opportunity to procure representation and expert testimony, but when she was unable to do so, the trial court granted the defendant's motion. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/parteek_010611.pdf
A woman who suffered prolonged bleeding, pain and disabling injury after gynecological surgery filed a pro se malpractice suit against the doctor who performed the surgery.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit in which he testified that in his treatment of the plaintiff he complied at all times with the relevant standard of acceptable professional practice. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to find an expert witness to controvert that affidavit.
The trial court granted the plaintiff several continuances to give her the opportunity to procure representation and expert testimony, but when she was unable to do so, the trial court granted the defendant's motion. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/parteek_010611.pdf
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Court Reviews Whether the Trial Court Properly Denied a Rule 60.02 Motion in a Case involving an Automobile Accident
RICHARD A. WILLETTE, JR. v. CARROLL G. HULSE ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. October 7, 2010)
This action arises out of a vehicular accident in which the plaintiff sustained serious personal injury. A complaint was filed on behalf of the pro se plaintiff; however, the complaint was not signed by the plaintiff or a licensed attorney as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.01.
The plaintiff subsequently retained counsel, but the plaintiff's attorney failed to make a written appearance until months later. Moreover, neither the attorney nor the plaintiff signed the complaint to cure the signature deficiency until after the case was dismissed and the statute of limitations had run.
The plaintiff then filed a Rule 60.02 Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order based on Excusable Neglect. That motion was denied and this appeal followed. We have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60.02 motion; therefore, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/willetter_100710.pdf
This action arises out of a vehicular accident in which the plaintiff sustained serious personal injury. A complaint was filed on behalf of the pro se plaintiff; however, the complaint was not signed by the plaintiff or a licensed attorney as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.01.
The plaintiff subsequently retained counsel, but the plaintiff's attorney failed to make a written appearance until months later. Moreover, neither the attorney nor the plaintiff signed the complaint to cure the signature deficiency until after the case was dismissed and the statute of limitations had run.
The plaintiff then filed a Rule 60.02 Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order based on Excusable Neglect. That motion was denied and this appeal followed. We have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's Rule 60.02 motion; therefore, we affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/willetter_100710.pdf
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Court Reviews Whether Defendant’s Failure to Respond to a Motion to Dismiss was Proper
SHEMAIN SHERILLE RILEY, ET AL. v. EDITH SWIFT (Tenn. Ct. App. November 30, 2010)
The General Sessions Court awarded the plaintiffs an $8,500 judgment for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The pro se defendant attempted to appeal the judgment to the Circuit Court, but failed to have the case docketed within 45 days after filing the notice of appeal, as is required by Davidson County Local Rule 20(b).
The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of untimeliness and to enforce the order of the General Sessions Court. The defendant did not respond to the motion, nor did she appear for the motion hearing. The Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and made the judgment of the General Sessions Court the judgment of the Circuit Court. The defendant then retained counsel, who filed a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment eight months after it was rendered. The Circuit Court denied the motion. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileys_113010.pdf
The General Sessions Court awarded the plaintiffs an $8,500 judgment for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The pro se defendant attempted to appeal the judgment to the Circuit Court, but failed to have the case docketed within 45 days after filing the notice of appeal, as is required by Davidson County Local Rule 20(b).
The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of untimeliness and to enforce the order of the General Sessions Court. The defendant did not respond to the motion, nor did she appear for the motion hearing. The Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and made the judgment of the General Sessions Court the judgment of the Circuit Court. The defendant then retained counsel, who filed a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment eight months after it was rendered. The Circuit Court denied the motion. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rileys_113010.pdf
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Court Reviews Whether Plaintiff Should be Allowed to Reopen Proof in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case
WILLIAM J. REINHART v. GEICO INSURANCE (Tenn. Ct. App. September 30, 2010)
The plaintiff owned a 1988 Porsche that was damaged by a collision with a deer. His insurer offered him $6,000 under his policy, after determining that the cost of repair was greater than the cash value of the car. The plaintiff, acting pro se, sued the insurer, and attempted to prove at trial that the auto was worth more than the insurer offered. After the plaintiff rested his case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict because the plaintiff had not introduced the insurance policy into evidence. The trial court granted the motion.
The plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not intend to rest his case and that in any event the trial court should have allowed him to reopen his proof so he could introduce the insurance policy. Because there is neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a Rule 24 Statement of the Evidence in the appellate record, we must affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/reinhartw_093010.pdf
The plaintiff owned a 1988 Porsche that was damaged by a collision with a deer. His insurer offered him $6,000 under his policy, after determining that the cost of repair was greater than the cash value of the car. The plaintiff, acting pro se, sued the insurer, and attempted to prove at trial that the auto was worth more than the insurer offered. After the plaintiff rested his case, the insurer moved for a directed verdict because the plaintiff had not introduced the insurance policy into evidence. The trial court granted the motion.
The plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not intend to rest his case and that in any event the trial court should have allowed him to reopen his proof so he could introduce the insurance policy. Because there is neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a Rule 24 Statement of the Evidence in the appellate record, we must affirm the trial court.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/reinhartw_093010.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)