Lackey v. Carson

13 Citing cases

  1. Liu v. Lancer Ins. Co.

    3:24-cv-00641 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 8, 2024)

    It is “well-settled that Tennessee does not recognize a civil action for perjury … .” Goetz v. Autin, No. W2022-00393-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2545712, at *18 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2023) (citing Felts v. Paradise, 158 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tenn. 1942) (“It is the well-settled law that an action at law will not lie to recover damages for perjury alleged to have been committed in a former case in which the plaintiff might have been interested.); Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2000); Lacky v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 6, 1994); Medlock v. Ferrari, 602 S.W.2d 241, 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 13, 1979)). See also Chaves v. Eacott, No. 3:13-CV-114-TAV-HBG, 2014 WL 619716, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2014)

  2. Chaves v. Eacott

    No.: 3:13-CV-114-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 18, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, there is no cause of action for perjury under state law. See Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Eacott also moves the Court to dismiss the Title VII claim against him because he cannot be held individually liable [Docs.

  3. Devall v. OneWest Bank, FSB

    Case No. 3:11-cv-1078 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 12, 2012)

    In addition, Tennessee case law has found that there is no civil action for perjury. Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Plaintiffs claims against Defendant for perjury, mail fraud, and insurance fraud should be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  4. Cooper v. Parker-Hughey

    1995 OK 35 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 39 times
    Concluding "no Oklahoma statute specifically allows a civil cause of action against one who commits perjury"

    Jobes, 209 Ind. 196, 198 N.E. 316 (1935); Beeck v. Kapalis, 302 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa 1981); Hokanson v. Lichtor, 5 Kan. App.2d 802, 626 P.2d 214 (1981); Lawson v. Hensley, 712 S.W.2d 369 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986); Gusman v. Hearsey, 28 La. Ann. 709 (1876); Schaub v. O'Ferrall, 116 Md. 131, 81 A. 789 (1911); Hager v. Major, 353 Mo. 1166, 186 S.W.2d 564 (1945); Stolte v. Blackstone, 213 Neb. 113, 328 N.W.2d 462 (1982); Eikelberger v. Tolotti, 96 Nev. 525, 611 P.2d 1086 (1980); Stevens v. Rowe, 59 N.H. 578 (1880); Kantors v. Kessler, 132 N.J.L. 336, 40 A.2d 607 (1945); Newin Corp. v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 37 N.Y.2d 211, 371 N.Y.S.2d 884, 333 N.E.2d 163 (1975); Hawkins v. Webster, 78 N.C. App. 589, 337 S.E.2d 682 (1985); Brewer v. Carolina Coach Co., 253 N.C. 257, 116 S.E.2d 725 (1960); Schmidt v. State Aerial Farm Statistics, Inc., 62 Ohio App.2d 48, 16 O.O.3d 85, 403 N.E.2d 1026 (1978); Yoder v. Cole, 232 Pa. 509, 81 A, 546 (1911); Ginsburg v. Halpern, 383 Pa. 178, 118 A.2d 201 (1955); Lackey v. Lackey, 886 S.W.2d 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Kale v. Palmer, 791 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990); Platts, Inc. v. Platts, 73 Wn.2d 434, 438 P.2d 867 (1968); Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis.2d 239, 246 N.W.2d 507 (1976). Prior to 1864 when the statute authorizing the cause of action was enacted, Maine did not recognize the tort of perjury.

  5. Goetz v. Autin

    No. W2022-00393-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Felts v. Paradise, 158 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tenn. 1942) (holding: "It is the well-settled law that an action at law will not lie to recover damages for perjury alleged to have been committed in a former case in which the plaintiff might have been interested.); Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App 2000), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 25, 2000); Lacky v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 6, 1994); Medlock v. Ferrari, 602 S.W.2d 241, 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 13, 1979).

  6. Justice v. Nelson

    No. E2018-02020-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    This holding has been reaffirmed several times. E.g., Burt v. MacTavish, No. E2012-01293-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3198147, at *3 n.1 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed June 21, 2013); Wicks v. Vanderbilt Univ., No. M2006-00613-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 858780, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Mar. 21, 2007); Decker v. Carroll Academy, No. 02A01-9709-CV-00242, 1999 WL 332705, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed May 26, 1999); Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 6, 1994). In Carnett v. PNC Bank, NA, we emphasized the limits of a trial court's authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte.

  7. Wicks v. Vanderbilt Univ.

    No. M2006-00613-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2007)   Cited 5 times

    1975). In such a case, the court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, taking all of the allegations of fact therein as true. Id.; see alsoLackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994) (citing Sullivant v. Americana Homes,Inc., 605 S.W.2d 246, 249 (Tenn.App. 1980)). Any such dismissal by the trial court, like a dismissal under Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, is subject to scrutiny on appeal. Huckeby, 521 S.W.2d at 571 (citing generally Williamson County v. Twin Lawn Dev. Co.,Inc., 498 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn.

  8. Amanda Construction v. White

    No. W2004-00521-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2004)   Cited 2 times
    In Amanda Construction, Inc. v. White, No. W2004-00521-COA-R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 818, at **6-7 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 1, 2004), no appl. perm. appeal filed, the Western Section of this Court cited the eleven factors as those used by the courts of this state "when determining whether to pierce the corporate veil...."

    Tennessee courts have recognized the authority of a trial court to, on its own motion, dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Huckeby v. Spangler, 521 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tenn. 1975); Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). We believe that a trial court likewise has the authority to deny a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed amendment fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  9. Boyd v. Bruce

    No. M2000-03211-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2001)   Cited 7 times

    A trial court need not wait for a party to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6), for it possesses the authority to dismiss the petition sua sponte if the pleading fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Huckeby v. Spangler, 521 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tenn. 1975); see also Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, 232 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). The motion for sanctions was based upon the prior litigation between the parties.

  10. Holt v. Young

    No. M2000-00243-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Second, the trial court dismissed Mr. Holt's claim for perjury. The trial court found that the claim for perjury failed to give rise to a civil cause of action. We agree. "The law in this jurisdiction does not recognize a civil action for perjury or conspiracy to commit perjury."Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222, 231 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000) (quoting Lackey v. Carson, 886 S.W.2d 232, (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994)). Mr. Holt cannot state a civil claim for perjury.