Clinch V Hospital

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

In today’s world, more healthcare facilities are operated by managed care. These types of facilities are use outside contractors to keep costs low. One type of scenario would be anesthesiologists or specialized doctors working at hospitals to treat patients, in doing so, the hospital pays only for time worked instead of having a full-time staff that is not occupied all of the time. In the case of Cordero v. Christ, Christ Hospital contracted an anesthesiologist whose work brought harm to a patient. Because the hospital did not have preponderance evidence showing Respondeat Superior, the jury brought summary judgement thus awarding the Corderos damages from both the principal and the contractor by way of Apparent Authority and Vicarious Liability. Had the principal and contractor worked with an agreement, and followed guidelines set down by a risk management team, the summary judgement make not have happened. Unfortunately, neither party protected themselves as they could’ve by having the simplest of things, like their own logoed uniforms, a contract, and contracts for patients so sign like disclaimers and waivers.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

7. Court’s Order: As a result of this holding the court has established sufficient law entitles P to have her case heard before trial court.

On review in the appellate court, after the trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for the defendant, were three testimonies submitted by the defendant. Id. at *2. The court held that the testimonies did not sufficiently establish the appropriate standard of care because while each testimony stated the applicable standard of care, none of them stated how the standard was or was not met. Id. at *9. In addition, the plaintiff submitted expert testimony by a veterinarian who stated,

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

It is this inaccurate portrayal of the summary judgment procedure that has led some to argue that the procedure is unconstitutional. The summary judgment procedure may not be as effective as it was intended to be, but that does not make it unconstitutional. The procedure is open to abuse as is any mechanism in law. ‘The summary judgment procedure permits the grant of a final judgment or order in a defended action without full pleadings or a trial.’ Its purpose is to be a ‘speedy remedy without the delay and high cost of a trial’ at

When a court rules on a summary judgment motion, the court must look positively to the Plaintiff’s case to decide if a genuine dispute of material fact is apparent. See Young-Losee v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011). Thus, if the court finds Drake’s case shows a genuine dispute, then the court must rule against Schultz on his motion for summary judgment.

“4. The arbitrator exceeded his or her powers or failed to use them to make a mutual, final, and definite

The appellant, Deepa, received false advice about the evidence she must submit, including evidence regarding an affair she had with a nurse at big public hospital 12 years ago. Due to this, Deepa requested to settle on whatever grounds her lawyer could get with Big Public Hospital, the Big Public Hospital was not willing to make a settlement offer. Deepa then discontinued the proceedings due to the fact she did not wish to give evidence, she later found out from another lawyer friend that evidence regarding the affair was not needed.