Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2021-01377-COA-T10B-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; December 14, 2021; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Karen Nisenbaum v. Michael Nisenbaum, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed a petition for recusal following a motion to disqualify the trial judge, which was denied by the lower court. Karen Nisenbaum, representing herself, filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal against this denial. The court dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, which outlines the necessary documentation required for such appeals, including the original motion for recusal, supporting documents, and the trial court's ruling. The court emphasized that pro se litigants must adhere to the same procedural rules as represented parties. The lack of required documentation meant the court could not fulfill its obligation to expedite the appeal process, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.