Tennessee Supreme Court· 11/21/2017

Charles GROGAN v. Daniel UGGLA, Et Al.

Citations

535 S.W.3d 864

Syllabus

I write separately in this case because I concur with part of the majority's analysis and disagree with other parts of it.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that a plaintiff’s complaint “fairly raise[d] both negligent misrepresentation (by way of his allegation that the defendant home inspector failed to report negligent construction
stating that, even when the parties lack privity, “the limited scope of defendants’ undertaking is nonetheless relevant in determining whether a tort duty to others should arise from their performance of the contractual obligations” (citation omitted)
declining to analyze the issue of duty under the “Satterfield duty factors” where a defendant inspect[or] failed to identify a source of harm during an inspection
declining to analyze the issue of duty under the “Satterfield duty factors” where a defendant inspect[or] failed to identify a source of harm during an inspection
declining to analyze the issue of duty under the “Satterfield duty factors” where a defendant inspected failed to identify a source of harm during an inspection
reaffirming that Section 552 is applicable in Tennessee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Roger, Bivins, Clark, Kirby, Lee

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.