§Why CasetextPricing

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

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment , 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment

70 Cited authorities

  1. Carvell v. Bottoms

    900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995)   Cited 852 times
    Holding that judicial estoppel doctrine did not apply when malpractice action was filed during pendency of related litigation

  2. McIntyre v. Balentine

    833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992)   Cited 393 times
    Holding that a plaintiff's negligence bars recovery only if it is not “less than ... the defendant's negligence”

  3. John Kohl & Co. P.C. v. Dearborn

    977 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998)   Cited 277 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury occurs when one loses a "legal right, remedy or interest"

  4. Gibson v. Trant

    58 S.W.3d 103 (Tenn. 2001)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that estoppel is appropriate where a defendant pleads guilty to a substantial criminal charge and then seeks in civil litigation concerning the same transaction to assert that he did not commit the criminal act.

  5. Beal Bank v. Arter Hadden

    42 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that "under the most natural reading" of California's tolling statute, "an action against an individual attorney is tolled so long as that attorney continues representation; conversely, an attorney's continued representation tolls an action only against that attorney"

  6. Ocean Ships, Inc. v. Stiles

    315 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that payment of a $5,000 deductible gave the insured an independent interest sufficient to allow the insured to sue for the entire loss

  7. Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc.

    146 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 86 times

    February 20, 2004 Session. July 26, 2004. Published Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 11. Appeal from the Circuit Court, Rutherford County, No. 47732, J.S. Steve Daniel, J. Larry G. Trail and Van A. French, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nissan North America, Inc. Joy L. Davis, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee, Clifford Michael Johnson. OPINION FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH, P.J., M.S., and WILLIAM B. CAIN, J., joined. Former

  8. Richardson v. Miller

    44 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that establishing the professional standard of care requires expert testimony

  9. Fahey v. Eldridge

    46 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn. 2001)   Cited 70 times
    Stating that a motion for new trial should set forth "a concise statement of the factual grounds" on which error is being alleged, "the legal ground upon which the trial court based its actions," and "a concise statement asserting the legal reasons why the court's decision was improper"

  10. Cardiac Anesthesia Servs., PLLC v. Jones

    385 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that the plaintiff suffered damage in the form of the inconvenience and expense of defending a motion for summary judgment as a result of the attorney's negligence

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 112,069 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"

  12. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,229 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

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

    Tenn. Code § 28-3-104   Cited 1,592 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims

  14. Section 29-26-119 - Damages

    Tenn. Code § 29-26-119   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that damages awarded in medical malpractice action "may include (in addition to other elements of damages authorized by law) actual economic losses suffered by the claimant by reason of the personal injury, including, but not limited to cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitation services, and custodial care, loss of services and loss of earned income"

  15. 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

  16. Section 62-39-102 - Chapter definitions

    Tenn. Code § 62-39-102   Cited 2 times

    As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Analysis assignment" means an analysis, opinion or conclusion prepared by a real estate appraiser that relates to the nature, quality or utility of identified real estate or identified real property; (2) "Applicant for initial registration, licensure, or certification": (A) Means any person applying for a registration, license, or certification issued under this chapter who does not currently hold a valid registration, license,

  17. Section 62-39-101 - Short title

    Tenn. Code § 62-39-101   Cited 1 times

    This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "State Licensing and Certified Real Estate Appraisers Law." T.C.A. § 62-39-101 Acts 1990, ch. 865, § 2.

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

    Tenn. R. App. P. 3   Cited 18,097 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

  19. Rule 36 - Relief; Effect of Error

    Tenn. R. App. P. 36   Cited 3,312 times

    (a) Relief To Be Granted; Relief Available. The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals shall grant the relief on the law and facts to which the party is entitled or the proceeding otherwise requires and may grant any relief, including the giving of any judgment and making of any order; provided, however, relief may not be granted in contravention of the province of the trier of fact. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring relief be granted to a party responsible

  20. Rule 702 - Testimony by Experts

    Tenn. R. Evid. 702   Cited 599 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

  21. Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence

    Tenn. R. Evid. 103   Cited 573 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