Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Intervene, Motion to
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
In re Lorelai E., No. M2022-00173-COA-R3-PT, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2022).
The standard of review for the denial of permissive intervention under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24.02 is abuse of discretion. State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Chaille v. Warren, 635 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)). “An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the lower court has made a mistake in that it affirmatively appears that the lower court’s decision has no basis in law or in fact and is therefore arbitrary, illogical, or unconscionable.” Id.
Lexington Charter L.P. v. FBT of Tennessee, Inc., No. W2021-01138-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2022).
On appeal, “[t]he standard of review . . . for the denial of intervention as of right is de novo, except for the timeliness of the application which is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000).
Haiser v. McClung, No. E2021-00825-COA-R3-CV, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022).
The standard of review on appeal for the denial of intervention as of right is de novo, except for the timeliness of the application which is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Michigan State AFL-CIO [v. Miller], 103 F.3d [1240] at 1245 [(6th Cir.1997)]. The standard of review for the denial of permissive intervention is abuse of discretion. Chaille v. Warren, 635 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tenn. App. 1982). An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the lower court has made a mistake in that it affirmatively appears that the lower court’s decision has no basis in law or in fact and is therefore arbitrary, illogical, or unconscionable. See Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Carter, 890 S.W.2d 449, 454 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
Parking Guys, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t. of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. ex rel. Traffic & Parking Comm’n., 605 S.W.3d 451, 460 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tenn. 2000)).
