KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. StarLink Logistics Inc. v. ACC, LLC

    653 F. Supp. 3d 462 (M.D. Tenn. 2023)   Cited 1 times
    Discussing the standard outlined in Campbell v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 238 F.3d 772, 775 (6th Cir. 2001)

    "The distinction is critical because the two categories require ... different standards for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run." KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC, No. W201800301COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1504034, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2019). Tennessee Courts often refer to the second kind of nuisance as a "temporary nuisance."

  2. Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LLC

    1:18-cv-00029 (M.D. Tenn. May. 1, 2024)

    In one case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals noted, with good reason, that the definitions reflected in the first line of cases “are not entirely satisfactory.” KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC, No. W201800301COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1504034, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2019).

  3. Clayton v. Dixon

    No. M2021-00521-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2023)

    The statute of repose may not be asserted by a person in possession or control of the improvement at the time of the alleged deficiency causing the alleged loss. See KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC, No. W2018-00301-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 1504034, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2019) (holding that the "owner of the levee at the time it allegedly caused Plaintiffs' loss . . . cannot assert the statute of repose as a defense"); Manis v. Gibson, No. E2005-00007-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 521466, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2006) (holding that the owners of the improvements "at the time of the alleged deficiency" could not rely on the statute of repose).

  4. Moses v. Roland

    No. W2019-00902-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2021)

    "Whether or not a defendant's conduct rises to the level of willful, wanton or gross negligence turns upon the facts of each case." KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC, No. W2018-00301-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 1504034, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2019) (citing Inter-City Trucking Co. v. Daniels, 178 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tenn. 1944)). Thus, to remove immunity in this situation, the facts must demonstrate not just simple negligence, but also a reckless disregard for the rights of others.