|
Posted on May 28 2013 8:19AM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Every year the Tennessee Administrative Office of the
Courts
publishes the “Annual Report of
the Tennessee Judiciary” to provide, in part, information on appellate cases
in Tennessee (this report also provides comprehensive statistics on the trial
courts in Tennessee). The fiscal year,
2011 - 2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012), report is the most recent report
that has been released and it provides fascinating details about all aspects of
Tennessee litigation. This post will
concentrate on some statistical information on interlocutory (Rule 9) and extraordinary
(Rule 10) Appeals in Tennessee. I cannot
cover everything in this post so I recommend you review the full
report
if you have the opportunity. It is 339
pages long so there is a lot of good statistical information.
Interlocutory
Appeal by Permission of the Trial Court:
Under Tennessee Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9,
parties have the ability to pursue an interlocutory appeal by permission from
the trial court. An interlocutory appeal
is an appeal in a case before the entire case is final. Under Rule 9, a party must file a motion
seeking an interlocutory appeal within 30 days “after the date of entry of the
order appealed from.” If the trial court
grants this motion, a party is not guaranteed to be heard by the appellate
court. Rule 9 provides that if the trial
court grants the motion, then an application for permission to appeal must be
filed with the appellate clerk within 10 days of the trial court order. Then, “the appellate court may thereupon in
its discretion allow an appeal from the order.”
If the intermediate appellate court denies the application for
permission to appeal, then a “Application for Permission to Appeal from Denial
of Rule 9 Application” can be filed with the Tennessee Supreme Court.
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on May 20 2013 8:10AM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Analysis: The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals
decision of Robert Thomas
Edmunds v. Delta Partners, LLC, No. M2012-00047-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 6604580
(Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2012) discussed the concept of piercing the
corporate veil under Tennessee law. This
case, in part, dealt with what is required to be established under Tennessee
law in order to pierce the veil of a corporation. In short, the doctrine of piercing the
corporate veil allows, in certain circumstances, individual members or
executives of a corporation (including an LLC - Limited Liability Company) to
be personally responsible for the liabilities of the corporation. This cased involved a dispute between an
employer and a former employee over back pay (see detailed prior
post on this same case on what constitutes an employment contract under
Tennessee law).
Edmunds at 1 - 3. The employee was ultimately awarded damages
by the trial court which were affirmed by the Appellate Court for back pay
pursuant to an employment contract. Edmunds at 4 - 5. The plaintiff
tried to hold the owner of the company personally responsible under the
doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil”.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals in this
case discussed that a corporation is presumed to be a distinct legal entity
that is separate from its members, shareholders, officers, as follows:
There is a
presumption that a corporation is a distinct legal entity, wholly separate and
apart from its shareholders, officers, directors, or affiliated corporations.
In an appropriate case and in furtherance of the ends of justice, the separate
identity of a corporation may be discarded and the individual or individuals
owning all its stock and assets will be treated as identical to the
corporation. Discarding the fiction of
the corporate entity, or piercing the corporate veil, is appropriate when the
corporation is liable for a debt but is without funds to pay the debt, and the
lack of funds is due to some misconduct on the part of the officers and
directors.
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted on May 6 2013 9:26PM by Attorney, Jason A. Lee
|
Analysis: The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently
discussed the important issue of when a document or series of documents should
be considered an “employment contract” under Tennessee law in Robert
Thomas Edmunds v. Delta Partners, LLC, No. M2012-00047-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 6604580
(Tenn. Ct. App. December 18, 2012).
In this case the employee received several documents from his employer
about his employment with Delta, the employer.
These documents included both a non-disclosure agreement and a
non-competition agreement, to which the employee agreed to and signed. (Edmunds
at 1). These employment documents (that the employee
and employer executed) included the following language:
In consideration
of the performance of all services required by Delta
[ ], the confidentiality provisions and covenant not-to-compete set forth
herein, the Company [i.e. Delta] agrees to pay
Employee [i.e. Mr. Edmunds] a salary outlined in
the Employee Offer Letter. This initial salary and other benefits provided to
Employee pursuant to the Offer Letter may, from time to time as agreed by
Employee and Company, be modified.
It is of note that both the employer
representative and the employee signed the documents as well as the offer
letter identifying the $65,000.00 starting salary. (Edmunds at 1). A dispute eventually arose about the
compensation the employee was owed after the employer informed the employee in
2006 that the employer could no longer afford to pay the employee. (Edmunds at 1). Despite this representation from the
employer, the employee continued to work for the company "out of personal
loyalty" for over two years despite the fact he was only sporadically paid
by the employer. (Edmunds at 1 - 3). Eventually the employee resigned in the fall
of 2008 and then brought suit against the employ...
|
Continue
Reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|