Simmons v. Shahidul Islam

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

One, his case citations appear to be from an artificial intelligence hallucination.3 The cases cited in the brief, insofar as they exist, do not stand for the stated propositions for which Mr. Simmons offers them.4 Two, Rule 19 itself and prior caselaw support the opposite conclusion. The Rule itself states that, when a party dies while the appeal is pending, “the appellate court may order substitution of the proper parties” and that the motion “may be made by any party or by the successor or representative of the deceased party.” Tenn. R. App. P. 19(a) (emphasis added). When interpreting statutes, “[t]he traditional, commonly repeated rule is that shall is mandatory and may is permissive.” Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 112 (2012).5 “Tennessee courts have embraced this traditional rule.” Armitage v. Hale, No. E2024-01905-COA-R3-CV, 2025 WL 3765874, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. ... in one important regard:here,Defendantnevermovedthetrialcourttodismiss Plaintiff's action for failure to comply with Rule 25.01’s 90- daydeadline.”).Accordingly,afailureofsubstitutiondoesnot automatically defeat this court's jurisdiction. *8 Thejurisdictionofthiscourtcontinuesbecause“[a]ctions do not abate by the death or other disability of either party, or by the transfer of any interest in the action, if the cause of action survives or continues.”6 Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-101; see Tenn. Code Ann.

Authorities cited in the passage: Armitage v. Hale, No. E2024-01905-COA-R3-CV, 2025 WL 3765874, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. ... in one important regard:here,Defendantnevermovedthetrialcourttodismiss Plaintiff's action for failure to comply with Rule 25.01’s 90- daydeadline.”) · Rule 19 · Rule 25.01