Legal Opinion

McInturff v. Neeseman

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided September 30, 1998PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FRANKS, J.

This appeal focuses on the action of the Chancellor in striking defendants’ jury demand, as a sanction for failing to file jury instructions, in accordance with a pre-trial order.

Defendants in their answer, timely demanded a jury, and the Chancellor, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, entered an order giving notice of the date for a pre-trial conference, and ordered the parties to file pretrial memoranda with the Court at least five days before the pre-trial conference, and set forth certain matters to be contained in the memoranda. Additionally,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brooks v. United Uniform Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1984
  2. McBride v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Baron Construction, LLC v. 4J Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2024
  2. Du Sik Lee and Won Jae Lee v. Kenneth R. Davis and Linda P. DavisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2007
  3. Marc Kayem v. William StewartCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API