Mires v. Clay

11 Citing cases

  1. Keeton v. Klein

    No. M2005-00475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2006)

    The two motions for a continuance filed by Mr. Klein in the trial court were filed prior to the beginning of the jury trial and not during the course of the trial. This distinction was important in Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999) in which this Court held that a motion for a new trial was necessary to prevent waiver of the issue under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e) when such motion was made during the course of the jury trial. "Since Appellant's motion for continuance was not made until after the jury was empaneled, and the alleged error was not cited in a motion for a new trial, we believe that the issue is precluded pursuant to T.R.A.P. 3(e)."

  2. In Matter of Calfee

    No. E-2000-01720-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 31, 2001)

    Even if a motion for a directed verdict had been made at trial, Appellants' failure to file any post-trial motion on this issue prohibits appellate review. In Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999), this Court observed that when the alleged error is the failure of the trial court to grant a directed verdict, either a motion for a new trial or a motion seeking entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict made at trial would be sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. "Failure to file either of these post-trial motions, however, denies `the trial judge the opportunity to consider or reconsider alleged errors committed during the course of trial' and precludes appellate review of that issue." Mires, 3 S.W.3d at 468 (quoting Cortez v. Alutech, Inc., 941 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Tenn.App. 1996)).

  3. Creech v. RMRTN Chatt, LLC

    No. W2017-01541-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e) (emphasis added). This Court faced a similar scenario in Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). In Mires, a defendant moved for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's proof and renewed the motion at the close of all proof. However, the defendant failed to file a post-trial motion addressing the denial of the motion for directed verdict.

  4. State Auto. v. Jones Stone

    No. M2009-00049-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2009)   Cited 4 times
    In Jones Stone, an insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that it did not owe the insured coverage under a policy it had issued to the insured.

    "Failure to file either [a motion for a new trial or a motion for judgment n.o.v.] . . . denies `the trial judge the opportunity to consider or reconsider alleged errors committed during the course of trial' and precludes appellate review of that issue." Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing and quoting Cortez v. Alutech, Inc., 941 S.W.2d 894-96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). We find State Auto's third issue to be waived because the trial court denied State Auto's motion for a directed verdict on the TCPA claim during the "trial of the case" and State Auto failed to assert error in the denial of the motion in its motion for a new trial.

  5. Dean v. Home Depot USA

    No. M1999-02313-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2001)

    As a result of this holding, the Court of Appeals refused to consider any of the three issues brought on appeal and affirmed the trial court's ruling. A similar situation faced the Court in the cases of Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999) (application for permission to appeal denied July, 26, 1999) and McKinney v. Smith County, No. M1988-00074-COAR3CV, 1999 WL 1000887 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 5, 1999). In these cases, the defense requested a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case and requested dismissal at the conclusion of all proof. The defense then failed to file any post trial motions on these issues before the trial court.

  6. Lebel v. CWS Mktg. Grp.

    No. E2022-01106-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023)

    In Mires v. Clay, a breach of contract action tried by a jury, the defendant raised on appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor. Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 466 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

  7. Carman v. Kellon

    No. M2019-00857-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In Carman, the defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, which the trial court denied.

    In Mires v. Clay, a case involving a breach of contract that was tried by a jury, the defendant raised four issues on appeal. Mires, 3 S.W.3d 463, 466 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). One of the issues was whether the trial court had erred in failing to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor.

  8. In re Dyllon M.

    No. E2020-00477-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    "[W]hether to grant a continuance is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the [trial] court abused its discretion and that the party seeking a continuance has been prejudiced." Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413 (Tenn. 1997)). We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mother's motion for continuance.

  9. Harlow v. Cantrell

    No. M2006-00615-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2007)

    Whether or not to grant a continuance is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999). The trial court's decision denying a continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the court abused its discretion and that the party seeking a continuance has been prejudiced.

  10. State v. Pruitt

    No. M2000-00416-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2000)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Pruitt, No. M2000-00416-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.Ct.App. June 27, 2000), we were confronted with a mother who refused to take her medication until two months before the trial.

    We find the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue the case on its docket upon Mother's motion. See Mires v. Clay, 3 S.W.3d 463 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999). We now address the primary issue in this case, which we restate as whether the State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Termination of Parental Rights statute, T.C.A. ยง 36- 1-113, and the best interests of this Child require the termination of Mother's parental rights.