Tuggle v. Allright Parking Systems, 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 the trial court erred in denying the two plaintiffs the mandated number of peremptory challenges
• holding that the trial court erred in not providing the two party plaintiffs four peremptory challenges each
• holding that antagonistic interests were not required by the plain language of the statute
• Holding of Court that plain language of T.C.A. § 22-3-105(b) allows for four additional peremptory challenges where there is more than one party plaintiff or party defendant
• noting that the basis for recovery of loss of consortium is an “interference with the continuance of a healthy and happy marital life and injury to the conjugal relation”
• Holding of Court that plain language of [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 22-3- 105(b) allows for four additional peremptory challenges where there is more than one party plaintiff or party defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).