 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carson v. Gilleland8/29/2003
rictions and proceed with the case as though they could proceed at will. See Seybold v. Milwaukee County Sheriff, 276 F.Supp. 484 (E.D.Wis.1967).
State of Tennessee, Dept. of Children's Services v. Winifred Lynn Moss, 1998 WL 122716 at * 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Appellant further asserts that although he never demanded trial by jury, such demand was made in the Complaint and that Plaintiff could not, without his consent thereafter, waive trial by jury under T.R.C.P. Rule 38.05. Such is not the rule in Tennessee. Russell v. Hackett, 230 S.W.2d 191 (Tenn. 1950); Davis v. Ballard, 946 S.W.2d 816 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); Beal v. Doe, 987 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
"Whatever may be the restrictions on implied waiver in federal courts and in other state jurisdictions, it is clear that Tennessee still follows Russell v. Hackett, 190 Tenn. 381, 230 S.W.2d 191 (1950)." Beal v. Doe, 987 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Russell v. Hackett and Davis v. Ballard both held that failure to appear at trial impliedly waived trial by jury.
Making all allowances possible for the pro se status of the incarcerated Appellant, he cannot simply file an answer and then, for two years thereafter, do absolutely nothing to assert his rights by means available to him (motions, depositions, interrogatories, etc.) and depend upon the court to abandon its traditional role of impartiality by tipping the scales.
The judgment of the trial court is in all respects affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be necessary. Costs of the cause are assessed to the appellant.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|