I am happy to report that BirdDog Law is now offering two new books – Grading Papers – Civil and Grading Papers – Criminal. The books help lawyers quickly identify the applicable standard of review of multiple civil and criminal law issues.
Why does a trial lawyer care about appellate standards of review? Well, sometimes trial lawyers handle appeals. And, even if a trial lawyer never handles an appeal knowing the standard of review will help you advise your client on the appealability of an adverse decision and help you better pick your battles with our opponent and the trial judge.
And, using one of our Grading Papers books also gives you a leg up on legal research. How? If you find the standard of review in this book, the opinion (links included) will lead you to a discussion of the law on the subject. The latest law on the subject, because all opinions referenced are from January 1, 2022 or later (some TSC opinions that are cited are older).
Here is an example of how these books can be used. This sample from the civil book addresses the standard of review applicable to review of a trial court admitting (or declining to admit) some item of evidence:
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Milan Supply Chain Solutions F/K/A Milan Express, Inc., v. Navistar, Inc., No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV, 627 S.W.3d 125, 141, (Tenn. 2021).
As for Navistar’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing to admit the disclaimer into evidence, the abuse of discretion standard applies. State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890, 904 (Tenn. 2015).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV, p. 30-31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).
We note that, “[t]he trial court has broad discretion with regard to admitting valuation evidence in condemnation proceedings.” Giles Cty. v. Wakefield, No. 01A01-9307-CV-00335, 1994 WL 312897, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 1994) (citing State v. Rascoe, 178 S.W. 2d 392, 394 (Tenn. 1944) (further citation omitted)).
State v. The Witherspoon Law Group PLLC, No. E2021-01343-COA-R3-CV, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2022).
Decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court. Tenn. R. Evid. 104(a). Therefore, “[i]ssues regarding admission of evidence in Tennessee are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Merrell v. City of Memphis, No. W2013-00948- COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 173411, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2014) (citing Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). On this issue, this Court has held as follows:
An appellate court will not reverse a trial court’s exercise of discretion in ruling on an evidentiary motion in limine unless there is an abuse of the wide discretion given the trial court on evidentiary matters. Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124, 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Heath v. Memphis Radiological Prof’l Corp., 79 S.W.3d 550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).
…
When arriving at a determination to admit or exclude evidence, trial courts are generally “accorded a wide degree of latitude and will only be overturned on appeal where there is a showing of abuse of discretion.” Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1993) (citing Strickland v. City of Lawrenceburg, 611 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980); Tenn. R. Evid. 401; Austin v. City of Memphis, 684 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Inman v. Aluminum Co. of America, 697 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)). Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. Tenn. R. Evid. 103.
Brandy Hills Ests., LLC v. Reeves, 237 S.W.3d 307, 317-18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “When reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the ‘appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.’” Merrell, 2014 WL 173411, at *8 (quoting Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).
Abernathy v. Barile, No. E2022-00081-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21. 2022).
With respect to issues regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, appellate courts review the trial court’s determinations under an abuse of discretion standard. Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tenn. 2005); Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004). As we have previously explained:
Under this standard, we are required to uphold the trial court’s ruling “as long as reasonable minds could disagree about its correctness.” Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). So, “we are not permitted tosubstitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. An appellate court “will set aside a discretionary decision only when the trial court has misconstrued or misapplied the controlling legal principles or has acted inconsistently with the substantial weight of the evidence.” White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). We review a trial court’s discretionary decision to determine: “(1) whether the factual basis for the decision is supported by the evidence, (2) whether the trial court identified and applied the applicable legal principles, and (3) whether the trial court’s decision is within the range of acceptable alternatives.” Id.
Jackson v. Lanphere, No. M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3566978, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2011).
Charles v. McQueen, No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, p.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2022).
“Issues regarding admission of evidence . . . are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Watson v. Watson, 196 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). Under this standard, we will uphold a trial court’s ruling “so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to [the] propriety of the decision made.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)). “A trial court abuses its discretion only when it ‘applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.’” Id. (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)). The abuse of discretion standard does not allow this Court to “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998)).
Boesch v. Holeman, No. E2021-01242-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022).
A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1992). The courts are accorded a wide degree of latitude in their determination of whether to admit or exclude evidence. Id. The abuse of discretion standard of review “does not permit reviewing courts to second-guess” the trial court “or to substitute their discretion” for that of the trial court. Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “ ‘causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205, 210 (Tenn. 2019) (quoting Lee Med., 312 S.W.3d at 524).
Friedsam v. Krisle, No. M2021-00530-COA-R3-CV, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022).
The “decision whether to admit or exclude evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court.” In re Est. Of Schisler, 316 S.W.3d 599, 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Young v. Hartley, 152 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Bailey v. FirstBank, No. M2020-00837-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct App. May 27, 2022).
We review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion. White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tenn. 2015), as revised on denial of reh’g, (Aug. 26, 2015). “A trial court abuses its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard or reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Id.
Estate of Martha Harrison Bane v. Bane, No. E2020-00978-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2022)
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition testimony of Ms. Bane. A trial court’s evidentiary determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DePasquale v. Chamberlain, 282 S.W.3d 47, 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Brown v. Daly, 83 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)); see also Singh v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc., 390 S.W.3d 280, 284 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding deposition testimony). Further,
An erroneous exclusion of evidence requires reversal only if the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial had it been admitted. Pankow v. Mitchell, 737 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Reviewing courts cannot make this determination without knowing what the excluded evidence would have been. Stacker v. Louisville & N. R.R. Co., 106 Tenn. 450, 452, 61 S.W. 766 (1901); Davis v. Hall, 920 S.W.2d 213, 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); State v. Pendergrass, 795 S.W.2d 150, 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). Accordingly, the party challenging the exclusion of evidence must make an offer of proof to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the trial court’s exclusion of proffered evidence was reversible error. Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); State v. Goad, 707 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Tenn. 1986); Harwell v. Walton, 820 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Appellate courts will not consider issues relating to the exclusion of evidence when this tender of proof has not been made. Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Rutherford v. Rutherford, 971 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Shepherd v. Perkins Builders, 968 S.W.2d 832, 833-34 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Hampton v. Braddy, 270 S.W.3d 61, 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Thompson v. City of LaVergne, No. M2003-02924-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3076887, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006)).
Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Woody, No. E2019-01475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2022).
With respect to the standard of review regarding the admission of evidence, this Court stated in DeLapp v. Pratt:
Issues regarding admission of evidence in Tennessee are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “[T]rial courts are accorded a wide degree of latitude in their determination of whether to admit or exclude evidence, even if such evidence would be relevant.” Id. Our Supreme Court discussed the abuse of discretion standard in Eldridge v. Eldridge, stating:
Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling “will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to [the] propriety of the decision made.” A trial court abuses its discretion only when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted).
Appellate courts ordinarily permit discretionary decisions to stand when reasonable judicial minds can differ concerning their soundness. Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). A trial court’s discretionary decision must take into account applicable law and be consistent with the facts before the court. Id. When reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the “appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Id.
DeLapp v. Pratt, 152 S.W.3d 530, 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
These are excerpts from all of the Tennessee civil appellate courts discussing this issue since January 1, 2022.
The civil book has the current state of the law for 155 separate issues. There are 149 separate criminal issues.
For a limited time, the book is available at no charge.
Enjoy