Eskin v. Bartee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “in each case the appellate court must make a fresh determination that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have been satisfied”
• holding that “plaintiffs who have a close personal relationship with an injured party and who arrive at the scene of the accident while the scene is in essentially the same condition it was in immediately after the accident” may recover for emotional distress
• holding that “plaintiffs who have a close personal relationship with an injured party and who arrive at the scene of the accident while the scene is in essentially the same condition it was in immediately after the accident” may recover for emotional distress
• holding that “plaintiffs who have a close personal relationship with an injured party and who arrive at the scene of the accident while the scene is in essentially the same condition it was in immediately after the accident” may recover for emotional distress
• holding that “plaintiffs who have a close personal relationship with an injured party and who arrive at the scene of the accident while the scene is in essentially the same condition it was in immediately after the accident” may recover for emotional distress
• observing that Hill marked the Court’s first instance of willingness to depart from “the requirement that [in order to be compensable] emotional distress must either have some physical manifestation or be accompanied by a physical injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).