CompFox AI Summary
This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60.02 motion. The plaintiff, Stephen Ball, had previously sued the defendant, Theodore Shockley, for injuries arising out of a car accident. Shockley's motion for summary judgment was granted without opposition. Ball, after retaining new counsel, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Ball argued the trial court erred by denying his motion, asserting his former attorney was grossly negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as there was no evidence of negligence by Ball's former attorney and Ball failed to provide proof of a meritorious defense.
Stephen Ball v. Theodore Shockley is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60.02 motion. The plaintiff, Stephen Ball, had previously sued the defendant, Theodore Shockley, for injuries arising out of a car accident. Shockley's motion for summary judgment was granted without opposition. Ball, after retaining new counsel, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Ball argued the trial court erred by denying his motion, asserting his former attorney was grossly negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as there was no evidence of negligence by Ball's former attorney and Ball failed to provide proof of a meritorious defense.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.