Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc.

DecidedDecember 3, 2001

Docket01A01-9703-CV-00137

StatusPublished

This text of Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc. (Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc., (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

PAUL KEVIN NELSON, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 96C-1861 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9703-CV-00137 THE APPLICATION GROUP, INC., ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s conclusion that The Application Group, Inc. is entitled to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) relief under the facts of this case. However, I have prepared this separate opinion to state that I do not concur with the court’s sweeping conclusion that “Rule 60.02(1) relief should be granted when the lawyer realizes his [or her] oversight and takes steps to correct it.” I know of no precedent for the notion that efforts to correct an error, by themselves, are always enough to entitle a lawyer to post-judgment relief. They are only one of the many factors to consider when engaging in the fact-intensive analysis required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1).

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

PAUL KEVIN NELSON, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 96C-1861 VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9703-CV-00137 THE APPLICATION GROUP, INC., ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s conclusion that The Application Group, Inc. is entitled to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) relief under the facts of this case. However, I have prepared this separate opinion to state that I do not concur with the court’s sweeping conclusion that “Rule 60.02(1) relief should be granted when the lawyer realizes his [or her] oversight and takes steps to correct it.” I know of no precedent for the notion that efforts to correct an error, by themselves, are always enough to entitle a lawyer to post-judgment relief. They are only one of the many factors to consider when engaging in the fact-intensive analysis required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1).

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paul Kevin Nelson v. The Application Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-kevin-nelson-v-the-application-group-inc-tennctapp-2001.