Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · 2 courts · …two sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact. at p. 598 ✓
35 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Estate of Jerry Bradley Espy
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Estate of Jerry Bradley Espy
unknown court · 2019 · confidence medium
Co., 297 S.W.3d 237, 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (Plaintiffs’ documents attached to their memorandum were inadmissible evidence as the documents were not authenticated by affidavit as required by Rule 56.06)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pardy, Stephen v. Memphis Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Honda-Yamaha of Memphis
Tenn. Ct. Work. Comp. Cl. · 2017 · confidence medium
Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Memphis, A Municipal Corporation for the Use and Benefit of Memphis Light Gas and Water v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family, L.L.C.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co., 297 S.W.8d 237, 246 (Tenn.Ct.App.2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 31, 2009) (citation omitted); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991) (holding that plaintiffs’ documents attached to their memorandum were inadmissible evidence as the documents were not authenticated by affidavit as required by Rule 56.06).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua N. Lee v. Lyons Construction Company, Inc.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Mar. 4, 2003); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991)) (Plaintiffs’ documents attached to their memorandum were inadmissible evidence as the documents were not authenticated by affidavit as required by Rule 56.06).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua N. Lee v. Lyons Construction Company, Inc
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., S.W.3d 237, 246 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009), appeal denied (Aug. 31, 2009)(citing Dalton v. Dale, No. M2002-01205-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 726669 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar 4, 2003); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (Plaintiffs' documents attached to their memorandum were inadmissible evidence as the documents were not authenticated by affidavit as required by Rule 56.06).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beverly Lockard v. Christopher H. Bratton, M.D.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Two sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact.” Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (citing Tibbals Flooring Co. v. Stanfill, 410 S.W.2d 892 (Tenn. 1967); Ayers v. Rutherford Hosp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shelcusky v. Garjulio (2×)
N.J. · 2002 · confidence medium
Nov. 24, 1986); Henderson-Rubio v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 53 Or.App. 575 , 632 P.2d 1289, 1294-95 (1981); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.), appeal denied (Tenn. 1991); Farroux v. Denny’s Restaurants, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.Ct.App.1997); Webster v. Sill, 675 P.2d 1170, 1172-73 (Utah 1983); Marshall v. AC & S, Inc., 56 Wash.App. 181, 782 P.2d 1107, 1109-10 (1989); Yahnke v. Carson, 236 Wis.2d 257 , 613 N.W.2d 102, 108-09 (2000); Morris v. Smith, 837 P.2d 679, 684-85 (Wyo. 1992) ; but see Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030, 1041-42 (2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jason Goulet v. Jennifer Heede
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
While Tennessee does recognize the rule of cancellation wherein contradictory statements by witness regarding the same fact may cancel each other out, In Re Estate of Ross, 969 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); State v. Caldwell, 997 S.W.2d 110 , 118 (Tenn. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Cayle Wayne Harris
Tenn. Crim. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Bowers v. Potts, 617 S.W.2d 149, 154 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cassie Gilliland v. Billy Pinkley
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
More specifically, “[t]wo sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact.” Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. App. 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Church v. Perales
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See generally Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453, 460 (6th Cir.1986); Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991). 9 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Michael Edwards
Tenn. Crim. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals has restated the rule: “Two sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact.” Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Boatman's Bank v. Steven Dunlap
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. App. 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olds v. Donnelly (2×)
N.J. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Michael v. Beasley, 583 So.2d 245, 252 (Ala.1991) (finding that malpractice suit accusing attorney of mishandling prior personal hyury suit accrued on date of jury verdict against plaintiffs because “it was at this time that [plaintiffs] sustained legal injury sufficient for them to maintain an action against [defendant]”); Wettanen v. Cowper, 749 P.2d 362, 365 (Alaska 1988) (holding that malpractice action alleging that attorney failed to prepare for civil assault trial accrued upon the entry of trial court’s judgment because that was when plaintiff incurred actionable harm);…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burgess v. Harley (2×)
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tom and Karen Moore v. Lloyd A. Walwyn, M.D. - Dissenting
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
First, affidavits must be made on personal knowledge.7 Second, they must set forth facts that would be properly admissible at trial, but the affidavits themselves need not be admissible.8 Third, they must affirmatively 7 Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991); State v. Hartley, 790 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Tenn. Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Cox v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991).
cited Cited "see" Larry Parrish v. Robert Marquis
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. App., 1991).
discussed Cited "see" Wesley Cary v. Robert Bourne, M.D.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. App. 1991) (two sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Vernon Mott v. K. Jeffrey Luethke, Esq.
unknown court · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Price v. Becker, 812 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Raymond Cox And Elaine Cox v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Price v. Becker, 812 S. W. 2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). -9- The subject policy of insurance requires the insured to provide Tennessee Farmers a proof of loss within sixty days of the loss in the cooperation section of the policy.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Teresa Darlene PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jerrold L. BECKER, Defendant-Appellee
Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Mar 4, 1991.
812 S.W.2d 597
Hubert D. Patty, Maryville, for plaintiff-appellant., Howard Vogel, O’Neil, Parker & Williamson, Knoxville, for defendant-appellee.
Franks, Sanders, Inman.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

FRANKS, Judge.

In this action alleging legal malpractice, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant and we affirm on the basis that plaintiff failed to institute this action within the time required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-104.

Plaintiff filed her complaint on October 28, 1987 and as a basis of the action averred:

[T]he defendant, after accepting the plaintiff as a client, negligently failed to execute reasonable care in investigating, negotiating, preparing and pleading the plaintiffs claims under the law, he having previously dismissed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Knoxville, styled Tresea Darlene Price vs. Charles H. Dean, Jr. Et Al, No. 3-82-430, without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, resulting in great financial loss to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement, plaintiff’s action in the United States District Court was dismissed by court order on January 7, 1983. (The order of dismissal was stamped: “Filed January 7, 1982”.) The evidence establishes, without disputed facts as hereinafter explained, that plaintiff was aware or knew and approved of the settlement at the time it was made.

In order to create a disputed issue of material fact, the supporting affidavits must be made on personal knowledge and set forth facts that are admissible in evidence. T.R.Civ.P., Rule 56.05. The affidavits of plaintiff and her relatives do not meet this standard. Plaintiff in her affidavit does state that the settlement was entered without her “knowledge and consent” and that she did not in fact know that there would not be a trial of her lawsuit “until after January 1987”. In the face of these assertions, the record also contains her sworn testimonies that she testified at a compensation hearing in late January 1983, before a hearing representative of the U.S. Department of Labor, that her lawsuit in U.S. District Court “had been settled”. Two sworn inconsistent statements by a party are of no probative value in establishing a disputed issue of material fact. See Tibbals Flooring Co. v. Stanfill, 219 Tenn. 498, 410 S.W.2d 892 (1967); Ayers v. Rutherford Hosp. Inc., 689 S.W.2d 155 (Tenn.App.1984).

Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued as of the date defendant’s alleged negligence became irremediable. In this case, that date was the date the order of dismissal in U.S. District Court became final. See Ameraccount Club, Inc. v. Hill, 617 S.W.2d 876 (Tenn.1981). The statute would only be tolled during the period when the plaintiff had no knowledge that a wrong had occurred and, as a reasonable person, was not put upon inquiry. See Hoffman v. Hospital Affiliates, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 341 (Tenn.1983); Wolfe v. Gilreath, 699 S.W.2d 805 (Tenn.App.1985).

The record before us establishes the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s claim ran one year following the date of entry of the judgment of dismissal of her cause in U.S. District Court in January of 1983. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with cost of the appeal assessed to appellant.

SANDERS, P.J. (E.S.), and WILLIAM H. INMAN, Special Judge, concur.