Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Norman v. Liberty Life Assur. Co.

556 S.W.2d 772 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Norman v. Liberty Life Assur. Co.

13 Citing cases

  1. Home for Crippled Children v. Prudential Ins.

    590 F. Supp. 1490 (W.D. Pa. 1984)   Cited 42 times

    The policy containing the limitation was approved for use by the Tennessee Department of Insurance in March 1976. There have been no cases or other expressions of Tennessee public policy since that time indicating that the pre-existing condition limitation used by Connecticut General is now invalid or unacceptable. Furthermore, at least one Tennessee case has implicitly upheld the use of a pre-existing condition clause similar, at least in part, to the one in the Servico Policy. In Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772 (Tenn.App.), cert. denied (Tenn. 1977), the court affirmed the application of a preexisting condition limitation in a group insurance policy to the plaintiff, thereby denying him coverage for a coronary bypass operation.

  2. Commercial Painting Co. v. The Weitz Co.

    No. W2019-02089-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2022)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We must look at all the evidence, take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn. [ct.] App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979). Our duty upon review of conflicting evidence in a jury trial is not to determine where the truth lies, but only to determine if there was any material evidence to support the verdict below.

  3. Hodge v. Jones Holding Company

    No. M1998-00955-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2001)   Cited 3 times
    In Hodge, the plaintiff argued that the defendant construction company should not have been allowed to assert that the plaintiff sued the wrong company since the defendant failed to affirmatively plead the defense of comparative fault, as required by Tenn. R.Civ.P. 8.03.

    A Tenn. R.Civ.P. 50.01 motion for directed verdict should not be granted if the evidence is sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide. White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 231 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999); Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977). III.

  4. Corporate Ctrg. v. Corp. CTRG

    No. M1997-00230-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2001)   Cited 6 times

    A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.01 motion for directed verdict should not be granted if the evidence is sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide. White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 231 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999); Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977). Likewise, a jury's verdict should not be overturned in response to a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict unless the evidence, including all the inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, does not support a verdict for the plaintiff under any of the theories that the plaintiff advanced at trial.

  5. Winstead v. Goodlark

    No. M1997-00209-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2000)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that the premises owner of a hospital, whose personnel were "aware . . . of the possibility that [a dangerous condition] could pose a hazard to persons entering and leaving the hospital," owed a duty of care to pedestrians for injuries caused by the open and obvious dangerous condition

    These motions are also known in state court as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or j.n.o.v. (judgment non obstante verdicto) or in federal court as a post-verdict judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). Granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion is appropriate only when the evidence is insufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide, see Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991); Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977), or when reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion. See Williams v. Brown, 860 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tenn.

  6. Spann v. Abraham

    36 S.W.3d 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee's perception of a transfer "as a demotion to a position with diminished status and with fewer responsibilities" created a jury issue on whether the re-assignment constituted an adverse employment action

    Thus, our task is to review the record to determine whether Ms. Spann's evidence was sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide. See Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991); Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977). In conducting this review, we do not weigh the evidence, see Conatser v. Clarksville Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 920 S.W.2d 646, 647 (Tenn. 1995), or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

  7. Satterfield v. Long

    C.A. No. 03A01-9805-CV-00162 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 1999)

    We must look at all the evidence, take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979).

  8. Ingram, v. Earthman

    993 S.W.2d 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 91 times
    Holding in an action on a promissory note, the holder makes out a prima facie case by producing the note signed by the maker and by showing that there is a balance due on the note

    An appeal from the denial of a directed verdict involves a question of law concerning whether the evidence is sufficient to create an issue for the jury to decide. See Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991); Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977).

  9. Bryan v. Campbell

    720 S.W.2d 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 18 times

    We must look at all the evidence, take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn. App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979).

  10. Potter v. Tucker

    688 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that in an appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict, the court should consider "all of the evidence" or "the whole evidence"

    We must look at all the evidence, take the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the plaintiff and allow all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Norman v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 556 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tenn. App. 1977); Truan v. Smith, 578 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1979).