Edmundson v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 23 December 1996 |
| Citation | 945 S.W.2d 754 |
| Parties | Brenda EDMUNDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis and Wilma PRATT, and Detective Larry Johnson and Knox County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Brenda Edmundson, Knoxville, pro se.
Mary Ann Stackhouse, Deputy Knox County Law Director, Knoxville, for Appellees Larry Johnson and Knox County Sheriff's Department.
Carl W. Eshbaugh, Eshbaugh, Simpson and Varner, Knoxville, for Appellees Dennis and Wilma Pratt.
The plaintiff filed a civil warrant in the Knox County General Sessions Court for false arrest and other related matters. After an adverse judgment there, the plaintiff appealed to Circuit Court. On June 17, 1996, an order was entered in that court dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action against defendants Larry Johnson and the Knox County Sheriff's Department. This case was finally concluded at the trial court level when the suit against the remaining defendants, Dennis Pratt and Wilma Pratt, was dismissed on their motion by judgment entered August 6, 1996. On Friday, September 6, 1996, the thirty-first day following the entry of the judgment, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The notice of appeal was not timely filed. Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the notice of appeal "shall be filed with and received by the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from." Rule 21(a) of the same rules provides that "the date of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included." This means that the date of August 6 is not included, thus leaving 25 days in the month of August which are chargeable against the 30-day time period specified in Rule 4(a). The remaining five days of the 30-day period are the days of September 1 through 5, inclusive. The notice of appeal had to be filed on or before September 5. Therefore, a notice of appeal filed on September 6 was filed one day too late.
Can we ignore this late filing? The answer is clearly no. Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically provides that an appellate court "shall not permit the extension of time for filing a notice of appeal prescribed in rule 4." See John Barb, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 653 S.W.2d 422, 424 (Tenn.App.1983). Rule 21(b), T.R.A.P., is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James C. Loden, M.D., P.C. v. Schmidt, M2014-01284-COA-R3-CV
...Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see also Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Edmundson v. Pratt, 945 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 n.4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Proced......
-
Young v. Barrow
...from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe. Edmundson v. Pratt, 945 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996); Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 n. 4 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). The courts give pro se litigants who are untrained in t......
-
Sanders v. Comm'r of Dep't of Labor
...from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe. Edmundson v. Pratt, 945 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 n. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).The courts give pro se litigants who are untrained......
-
Discover Bank v. McCullough, No. M2006-01272-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 1/29/2008)
...that represented parties are expected to observe. Slone v. Mitchell, 205 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); Edmundson v. Pratt, 945 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996); Kaylor v. Bradley, 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 n. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Accordingly, self-represented litigants "must act ......