Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sheryl Haynes v. Terry Haynes (tennctapp, 2022-05-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheryl Haynes v. Terry Haynes
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Due to this inherent power, we have held that a trial court “‘is not restricted in the administration of its rules in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the court to the injury of a party,’” and “‘[t]his Court will not reverse a Trial Judge for waiving a local rule absent the clearest showing of an abuse of discretion and that such waiver was the clear cause of a miscarriage of justice.’” Craven v. Dunlap, No. 02A01-9202-CH-00027, 1993 WL 137584 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 1993) (quoting Osgood, 141 S.W.2d at 506 ; Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 5…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jason A. Brock v. Fed Loan Servicing
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, a trial court may waive requirements of local rules, and its decision to do so “will not be reversed ‘absent the clearest showing of an abuse of discretion and that such waiver was the clear cause of a miscarriage of justice.’” Krohn v. Krohn, No. M2015-01280-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 5772549 , at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2015) (quoting Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry Cox v. Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Of Wilson County, Tennessee
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
We will not reverse the trial court’s decision “absent the clearest showing of an abuse of discretion . . . that . . . was the clear cause of a miscarriage of justice.” Estate of Wilson v. Arlington Auto Sales, Inc., 743 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (quoting Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lee Stack, III v. Joann Valerie Stack
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). 11 discretion standard and will refrain from substituting their discretion for that of the trial court.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joe Livingston v. Jennifer Elaine Livingston
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curtis R. Thrapp v. Mary Elizabeth Thrapp
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525, 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
cited Cited "see" Donald Simmons v. KC Construction and Consulting, Inc.
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Killinger v. Perry, 620 S.W.2d 525 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John KILLINGER and Anne Killinger
v.
Patricia PERRY
Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Jun 9, 1981.
620 S.W.2d 525
1981 Tenn. App. LEXIS 610
Mark A. Schneider, Nashville, for defendant-appellant., Richard D. Speight, Nashville, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Nearn, Summers, Tomlin.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
NEARN, Judge.

A jury verdict was rendered against defendant Patricia Perry in the amount of $7,000.00 and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. From the order overruling the motion for a new trial defendant appeals to this Court with the single issue, viz:

“Did the trial court commit error by overruling the objection of defense counsel to the introduction of collective Exhibit No. 24 to the testimony of the Plaintiff, Anne Killinger, when these documents had not been exhibited to the defense prior to trial as required by the local rules?”

In effect, appellant charges the Trial Court with error in waiving its own local rule.

Local Rule 22 of the Courts of Davidson County provides that 72 hours prior to the trial counsel shall furnish or make available to opposing counsel copies of exhibits which are proposed to be offered in evidence.

However, Local Rule 3.01 provides: “Whenever a Judge determines that justice requires it, he may suspend any of these Rules.”

In this case the Trial Judge suspended the applicability of Rule 22 to the plaintiff and allowed plaintiff to introduce copies of cancelled checks and receipts which supported testimony already given regarding funds expended to repair damage caused by defendant.

The Trial Court has authority to make its own rules and accordingly may waive or abolish them if it chooses. This Court will not reverse a Trial Judge for waiving a local rule absent the clearest showing of an abuse of discretion and that such waiver was the clear cause of a miscarriage of justice.

This record fails to show any abuse of discretion and completely fails to show that justice has miscarried.

We deem it unnecessary to expend further judicial energy in the resolution of this appeal other than to say that from the record we can perceive no injury to the[*526] appellant from the action of the Trial Court and affirm the judgment below with costs of appeal adjudged against appellant and surety.

Done at Nashville in the two hundred and fifth year of our Independence and in the one hundred and eighty-sixth year of our Statehood.

SUMMERS and TOMLIN, JJ., concur.