December 22–28, 2025
Intermediate Scrutiny—a Tennessee Court of Appeals blog—is a snappy weekly newsletter from Tennessee appellate attorney Daniel A. Horwitz summarizing the week’s decisions from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. To subscribe, click here. Past newsletters can be found here.
- Woman buys a car from Dealership; the roof leaks and develops mold. Later, Woman gets sick and attributes it to the mold, so she files a negligence claim against Dealership. Dealership wins summary judgment based on absent proof of causation, and Woman appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Affirmed. Dealership “supported the motion for summary judgment with [Woman’s] interrogatory responses[,]” which “provided no information regarding the expert opinions [any witness] might offer.” And Woman’s “interrogatory responses adequately demonstrated she lacked the expert opinion evidence needed for her personal injury claim,” so the burden shifted to her to set forth specific facts showing there was a genuine issue for trial on the matter of causation. Thus, because Woman’s “personal affidavit could not establish causation[,]” the trial court properly dismissed her claim.
Firm Updates
It was Christmas; nothing happened this week. We filed some briefs, though. They’re below.
Reply Brief (in support of dismissing lawsuit over a flatulating golf cart): https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Aston-et-al.-Reply-Stampfiled.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Appeal (due to voluntary satisfaction of judgment): https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Turner-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
Reply Brief (in support of granting Tennessee Public Participation Act Petition involving a no-good, very-bad contractor): https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Ward-Reply-Brief.pdf
