Legal Opinion
In Re Bridgestone/Firestone
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Decided December 3, 2003No. M2002-02204-COA-R10-CVPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · HighersAlan E. Highers, J.
in which DAVID R. FARMER, J., and DON R. ASH, S.J., joined.
This extraordinary appeal arises from the lower court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine forum non conveniens. The case is comprised of thirty-one lawsuits, based on automobile accidents in Mexico involving Ford and Firestone products, that are consolidated in Davidson County, Tennessee for pretrial purposes. Using the approach set forth by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Zurich v. Inman, the trial court found that dismissal of the case was not necessary. For the following reasons, we reverse the ruling…
3Cases cited13 opinions
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Hataway v. McKinleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1992
- C.A. La Seguridad, as Subrogee v. Transytur Line, in Personam and M/v Nela Altomare, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., in RemCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by15 opinions
- In Re bridgestone/firestoneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2008
- Bearden v. Honeywell International Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010
- In re Bridgestone/FirestoneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2015
- In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2014
- Wahl v. General Electric Co.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.