§Why CasetextPricing

Allied Waste North America, Inc. et al v. Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment

42 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,049 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,170 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,601 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  4. Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    559 U.S. 393 (2010)   Cited 1,155 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"

  5. Hanna v. Plumer

    380 U.S. 460 (1965)   Cited 3,172 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

  6. Carvell v. Bottoms

    900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995)   Cited 851 times
    Holding that judicial estoppel doctrine did not apply when malpractice action was filed during pendency of related litigation

  7. Emmons v. McLaughlin

    874 F.2d 351 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 674 times
    Holding that affidavits that "merely repeated the vague and conclusory allegations" in the complaint "were insufficient to generate a genuine issue of material fact."

  8. McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997)   Cited 460 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the weight to be given to stated scientific theories, and the resolution of legitimate but competing scientific views, are matters appropriately entrusted to the trier of fact"

  9. State v. Shuck

    953 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1997)   Cited 439 times
    Holding that because a jury "may not be able to properly evaluate the effect of a defendant's cognitive and psychological characteristics on the existence of inducement and predisposition," exclusion of admissible expert testimony on that issue was not harmless error under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52 where entrapment was a defense

  10. Abeita v. Transamerica Mailings, Inc.

    159 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 349 times
    Holding that a plaintiffs assertions that a coworker's sexual and derogatory gender-based comments were "commonplace," "ongoing," and "continuing" crea1 ed a genuine issue of material fact as to her hostile-work-environment claim where those assertions were supported by evidence in interrogatories and deposition testimony that described in detail the specific remarks and the approximate dates on which they occurred throughout her term of employment

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,503 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,223 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  13. Section 28-3-104 - Personal tort actions; actions against certain professionals

    Tenn. Code § 28-3-104   Cited 1,587 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth a one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims

  14. Section 62-39-103 - License or certificate required

    Tenn. Code § 62-39-103   Cited 7 times

    (a) Except as provided in § 62-39-104, it is unlawful for anyone to solicit an appraisal assignment or to prepare an appraisal or an appraisal report relating to real estate or real property in this state without first obtaining a real estate appraiser's license or certificate. (b) This section shall not be construed to apply to individuals who render professional assistance in arriving at a real estate analysis, opinion or conclusion. (c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any

  15. Rule 3 - Appeal as of Right: Availability; Method of Initiation

    Tenn. R. App. P. 3   Cited 17,981 times

    (a) Availability of Appeal as of Right in Civil Actions. In civil actions every final judgment entered by a trial court from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals is appealable as of right. Except as otherwise permitted in Rule 9 and in Rule 54.02 Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, if multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is

  16. Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

    Tenn. R. Evid. 403   Cited 1,386 times

    Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 403 Advisory Commission Comments. The Tennessee Supreme Court approved this rule for both civil and criminal cases in State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1978).

  17. Rule 702 - Testimony by Experts

    Tenn. R. Evid. 702   Cited 598 times

    If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Tenn. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Commission Comments [2001]. The Frye test no longer exists in Tennessee. In McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (1997), the Tennessee Supreme Court listed

  18. Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence

    Tenn. R. Evid. 103   Cited 570 times

    (a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1)Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or (2)Offer of Proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence and the specific evidentiary