Crosslin v. Alsup
| Decision Date | 11 February 1980 |
| Citation | 594 S.W.2d 379 |
| Parties | Russell CROSSLIN, Petitioner, v. John G. ALSUP d/b/a Homestead Realty Company, Respondent. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Scott Daniel, D. Russell Thomas, Murfreesboro, for petitioner.
William H. Woods, John B. Carlson, Goodpasture, Carpenter & Woods, Nashville, for respondent.
This is an action for personal injuries sustained when petitioner walked into a plate glass window next to a doorway in respondent's office building. Two questions are presented: (1) the necessity of a motion for a new trial to review the action of the trial court in directing a verdict, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals held a motion for a new trial to be necessary and the failure to make such a motion precluded review. Then the court "informally examined" the record and made certain findings.
Rule 50.05, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, provides the answer in unmistakable language Whenever a court shall have granted a directed verdict, it shall not be necessary for the party against whom the verdict was directed to file a motion for a new trial in order to obtain appellate review of such action of the court. (Emphasis supplied).
It was the purpose of this rule to eliminate a "technical in the extreme" requirement from previous practice, one that had no reasonable basis and which served needlessly to delay and prolong litigation. (See Committee Comment.)
In holding a motion for a new trial to be necessary, the Court of Appeals relied upon four cases. Three of them were decided in 1906, 1915 and 1917, respectively. The holdings in these cases were made obsolete by the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1970, effective January 1, 1971. The fourth case, Rupe v. Durkin Durco, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 742, (Tenn.App.1976), was cited for the proposition that
the appellate courts will closely scrutinize any procedural rule which abrogates the necessity for a motion for a new trial in a jury case.
We reject this holding. Certiorari was not applied for in Rupe and we are not bound by a conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals.
The rules governing practice and procedure in the trial and appellate courts of Tennessee were promulgated by joint action of the General Assembly and the Supreme Court. They have the force and effect of law.
After holding that the failure to move for a new trial precluded review of all assignments of error, the Court of Appeals held that "(i)n spite of the foregoing, the record has been informally examined. . . ."
An informal examination of the record is unknown to the appellate judicial process. It is a patent nullity and an idle gesture.
The effect of the holding that review was precluded by failure to move for a new trial was to render the ensuing review dicta. We, therefore, have nothing before the Court from the Court of Appeals on the sufficiency question. We may only review the proof in accordance with the usual rules relating to directed verdicts and without regard to the "informal" review of the Court of Appeals.
Those rules require that the trial judges and the appellate courts take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the petitioner, allow all reasonable inferences in his favor, discard all countervailing evidence and deny the motion where there is any doubt as to the conclusions to be drawn from the whole evidence. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Earthman
...only when reasonable minds can reach one conclusion. See Williams v. Brown, 860 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tenn.1993); Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn.1980). A case should go to the jury, even if the facts are undisputed, when reasonable persons could draw conflicting conclusions from th......
-
Hatfield v. Allenbrooke Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLC
...(Tenn.1977). If there is any doubt as to the proper conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, the motion must be denied. Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. 1980).Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1994) (noting that the standard for reviewing a motion for a directed verdict ......
-
Burton v. Warren Farmers Co-Op.
...A jury issue has been created if there is any doubt regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn.1980), or if reasonable persons could draw different conclusions from the evidence. Hurley v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d......
-
Eaton v. McLain
...(Tenn.1977). If there is any doubt as to the proper conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, the motion must be denied. Crosslin v. Alsup, 594 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn.1980). Under the pre-McIntyre fault system, the question for the trial court on a motion for directed verdict/JNOV alleging contr......
-
Representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases
...only when reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion. See Williams v. Brown , 860 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tenn.1993); Crosslin v. Alsup , 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn.1980). A case should go to the jury, even if the facts are undisputed, when reasonable persons could draw conflicting conclusions f......
-
Representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases
...only when reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion. See Williams v. Brown , 860 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tenn.1993); Crosslin v. Alsup , 594 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Tenn.1980). A case should go to the jury, even if the facts are undisputed, when reasonable persons could draw conflicting conclusions f......