unrelenting imposition principle in Tennessee

2012It is “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tenn. 1990).

2009It is “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tenn. 1990).

2013Id. -8- Rule 60.02 has been described as an “escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2012Rather, Rule 60.02 is an “‘escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.’” Id. (quoting Thompson v. Firemens Fund Ins.

2019Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991); Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), and provides “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2013Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991); Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), and provides “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2021In identifying various grounds for relief from “a final judgment, order or proceeding,” Rule 60.02 “acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedure rules.” Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441 , 444–45 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Banks v. Dement Constr.

2019Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991); Rogers v. Estate of Russell, 50 S.W.3d 441, 444 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), and provides “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2016Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 127 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Jenkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)), by providing “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 336 (quoting Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2014Rule 60.02 “acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Id., quoting Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2001Co., 871 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tenn. 1990).

2000Co., 871 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tenn.1990).

2019“Rule 60.02 has been described as an ‘escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.’” Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 336 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2017Our Supreme Court has described Rule 60.02 as an “„escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.‟” Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 336 (quoting Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2016Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Thus, an employee seeking to set aside an order approving a workers' compensation settlement agreement in accordance with Rule 60.02 must present clear and convincing evidence supporting a basis to set aside the order.

2005Co., 834 S.W.2d 289, 294 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Toney v. Mueller Co., 810 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. 1991)), “the purpose of which ‘is to alleviate the effect of an oppressive or onerous final judgment,’” Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Killion v. Dep’t of Human Services, 845 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tenn. 1992)). -47- “Rule 60.02 acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality embedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2009Id. at 213-214 .

2005Co., 834 S.W.2d 289, 294 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Toney v. Mueller Co., 810 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. 1991)), “the purpose of which ‘is to alleviate the effect of an oppressive or onerous final judgment,’” Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Killion v. Dep’t of Human Services, 845 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tenn. 1992)). -47- “Rule 60.02 acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality embedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2026Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238 (Tenn. 1990), that valve “should not be easily opened.”14 Toney, 14 In his brief, Appellant adds that Rule 60.02 motions should be construed “more liberally when relief is sought from dismissals based on procedural grounds—such as default or nonsuit—rather than from judgments entered after a trial on the merits.” (Citing Henry v. Goins, 104 S.W.3d 475, 481 (Tenn. 2003)). -9- 810 S.W.2d at 146 .

2016Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114, 127 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting Jenkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)), by providing “an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.” Henderson, 318 S.W.3d at 336 (quoting Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2012Sullivan v. Sullivan, 107 S.W.3d 507, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Goodman v. Goodman, 8 S.W.3d 289, 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).

2012Sullivan v. Sullivan, 107 S.W.3d 507, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Goodman v. Goodman, 8 S.W.3d 289, 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).

2005Co., 834 S.W.2d 289, 294 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Toney v. Mueller Co., 810 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. 1991)), “the purpose of which ‘is to alleviate the effect of an oppressive or onerous final judgment,’” Black v. Black, 166 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Killion v. Dep’t of Human Services, 845 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tenn. 1992)). -47- “Rule 60.02 acts as an escape valve from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the unrelenting imposition of the principle of finality embedded in our procedural rules.” Thompson v. Firemen’s Fund Ins.

2005With respect to legal issues, our standard of review of the denial of Rule 60.02 relief is conducted "under a pure de novo standard of review, according no deference to the conclusions of law made by the lower courts." Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Board of Education, 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).