The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Blount County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Blount County court system.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Wilson County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Wilson County court system.
Where plaintiffs asserting a tortious interference with a business relationship claim could not show that the defendants intended to cause a breach or termination of the relationship, which had already been breached before defendants’ involvement, or that defendants acted with an improper motive, summary judgment for defendants was affirmed.
In Throckmorton v. Lefkovitz, No. M2022-01124-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2024), plaintiff attorneys had previously represented clients in a property dispute in which clients’ goal was to be awarded the property at issue. Plaintiffs and clients had entered into a contingency fee agreement stating that clients would pay plaintiffs a percentage of the recovery, but recovery was not defined. After clients successfully obtained the property, plaintiff attorneys attempted to recover the percentage in the fee agreement based on a contract for the sale of the land that clients entered into. Clients contested that the amount sought was reasonable, and clients eventually hired defendant attorneys to represent them in the fee dispute.
Defendants advised clients to attempt to settle the dispute, and defendants engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiffs on behalf of clients. Defendants informed plaintiffs that if a settlement was not reached, clients would file for bankruptcy. Clients ultimately did file for bankruptcy, and through the bankruptcy process, plaintiffs and clients settled the fee dispute. Thereafter, plaintiff attorneys filed this case against defendant attorneys for tortious interference with a business relationship. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that the bankruptcy was a legitimate option, that defendants did not act with improper intent, and that there was no evidence that defendants “acted in self-interest.” Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Sullivan County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Sullivan County court system.
What is the consequence of a refusal to give an examination under oath to your Tennessee automobile insurance insurer? Your policy can be rendered void.
The facts.
Ponnapula was in a car wreck with Mr. Wright. It appears there was not any liability insurance on the vehicle being driven by Mr. Wright. Mr. Ponnapula made a claim against his own uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Montgomery County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Montgomery County court system.
Tennessee court holds that publicly available information triggered the duty to inquire and claim being barred by the statute of limitations.
The Facts
In First Community Bank, N.A. v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., No. E2022-00954-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2024), plaintiff bank purchased “approximately $135 million in asset-backed securities in the form of 11 notes issued by several collateralized debt obligations and a collateralized mortgage obligation,” including some purchased from defendant. All purchases were completed by 2007. By May 2008, plaintiff knew that the securities had lost significant value. The investment experienced continued losses, defaults, and downgrades in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiff eventually sold the securities, incurring an approximately $100 million loss.
Where defendants filed a counterclaim for intentional misrepresentation, but defendants’ allegations all centered around promises that plaintiffs had made to take certain actions in the future and defendants did not allege that plaintiffs had no present intention of performing when the promises were made, dismissal of the intentional misrepresentation claim was affirmed.
In Auxin, LLC v. DW Interests, LLC, No. M2022-01087-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2023), plaintiffs sued defendants asserting various claims related to a real estate development contract. Defendants filed a counter-claim for breach of contract, but also included a claim for intentional misrepresentation. Among other rulings, the trial court dismissed defendants’ intentional misrepresentation claim, which was affirmed on appeal.
To successfully assert an intentional misrepresentation claim, a party must show that the tortfeasor “made a representation of an existing or past fact” that “was false when made.” (internal citation omitted). Here, defendants’ factual allegations all related to statements plaintiffs allegedly made about things they would do in the future. The Court wrote:
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Williamson County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Williamson County court system.
Where video footage involving an altercation between a high school basketball coach and a student from another school was open to more than one interpretation, summary judgment for the coach on the student’s assault and battery claims was reversed.
In Kelley v. Root, No. W2022-01625-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2024), plaintiffs were a high school student and his mother, and plaintiff student had been involved in a multi-person altercation between two opposing high school basketball teams. Video of the altercation showed defendant coach making contact with the student, and the student then losing his balance, falling, and injuring himself. While the coach maintained that he was separating plaintiff student from one of his own players and used no more force than necessary, the student argued that the coach “became an active participant in this fight and forcefully punched [the student].”
Plaintiff filed this case asserting various claims against both the coach and the board of education. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling as to the claims for assault and battery against the coach.
