Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Medlin v. Clyde Sparks Wrecker Service, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 11, 2003No. 01-5941Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSiler, Circuit Judge

I concur in most of the conclusions reached in the decision by the majority. However, I respectfully dissent under issue (1). as I believe that the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law on Medlin’s punitive damages claim.

I do not find that there is clear and convincing evidence by Medlin to show that Clyde Sparks Wrecker Service, Inc. (CSWS) acted recklessly in connection with this very unfortunate accident. As recognized by the parties, we use Tennessee law in this diversity case. Both sides agree that the principal case on punitive damages in Tennessee is Hodges v.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Metcalfe v. WatersTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Honaker v. LeonardDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1971
  4. Sakamoto v. N.A.B. Trucking Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  5. Womack v. GettelfingerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API