Robert Fahey v. Fabien Eldridge & Eldridge Auto Sales, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the court will not find an error, even under a liberal interpretation of the motion, where no error has actually been alleged”
• explaining that a motion for new trial “significantly aids the functions of the appellate courts by limiting and defining the issues for review.”
• stating that “when an appellate court reviews a motion for a new trial under [Tennessee] Rule [of Appellate Procedure] 3(e
• noting a “precise citation to a rule, statute, or case as the legal ground for the alleged error is normally not required to preserve the issue for appeal under Rule 3(e).”
• “Decisions rendered before the effective date of the Rules of Appellate Procedure may in many cases be helpful to understanding the Rules themselves.”
• “[I]n order to preserve errors for appeal, the appellant must first bring the alleged errors to the attention of the trial court in a motion for a new trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).