Tire Shredders, Inc. v. ERM-North Central, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a witness was sufficiently familiar with the subject matter when he had worked in the subject business for years and had witnessed the use of the machine at issue on three prior occasions
• “[I]f the plaintiff’s property is capable of being repaired, the measure of damages is the cost of repair plus loss of use, rather than the diminution in value of the property.”
• “In order to challenge on appeal a trial court‟s admission of [expert testimony], there must appear in the record a timely and specific objection to the evidence or motion to strike the evidence.”
• “[Appellant] does not, however, direct us to any authority in Tennessee requiring the formal tender of a witness prior to the giving of expert testimony. Nor has our independent research revealed any such requirement.”
• finding trade journal advertisements of shredder prices were not hearsay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).