Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Involuntary Dismissal
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 A.H., No. M2022-01066-COA-R3-JV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2023).
In ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2), a trial court “may ‘impartially weigh the evidence as though it were making findings of fact and conclusions of law after all the evidence has been presented.’” In re Jonathan S., Jr., 2017 WL 3149600, at *4 (quoting Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Britt, 211 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tenn. 2007)). As for this Court’s duty when reviewing a trial court’s decision on a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) motion, we have explained:
“This court uses the familiar Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) standard to review a trial court’s disposition of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) motion because the trial court has used the same reasoning to dispose of the motion that it would have used to make a final decision at the close of all the evidence. Thus, we must review the record on appeal de novo with a presumption that the trial court’s findings are correct. We will affirm the trial court’s decision unless the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s factual determinations or unless the trial court has committed an error of law affecting the outcome of the case. We give great weight to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence because the trial court is in a much better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”
Id. at *5 (quoting Burton v. Warren Farmers Co-op, 129 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (internal citations omitted)).
Cryer v. The City of Algood, Tennessee, No. M2020-01063-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2022).
A trial court’s grant of an involuntary dismissal is reviewed pursuant to the standard provided in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Burton v. Wazrren Farmers Co-op, 129 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). This is because “the trial court has used the same reasoning to dispose of the motion that it would have used to make a final decision at the close of all the evidence.” Id. (citing College Grove Water Util. Dist. v. Bellenfant, 670 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). We therefore review the case de novo, presuming the trial court’s factual findings are correct unless the record preponderates otherwise or unless the trial court committed an error of law affecting the outcome of the case. Id. (citing Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984)). We afford the trial court’s findings on witness credibility great weight. Id. (citing Thompson v. Adcox, 63 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)).
