ÿWPC¬" Ýs˜ònK¹ä¨7ºõH¾Û÷ø©=Irß6Ç#MBÍ#}‡ÕdJº’7Þ”^‹Öþ7?ÇÓy ŒRýXc¾p¡Ôœ£¬ÓÇF¾U*‹÷£qÐô!‘ôô7qGÓ¯I0sß”m}Sl̓Ô~È*'xVRxò\]ô–ÈÀAB¯µ¹ŸM ̘|Ne2AâYôL^…lœÚ„  ü¨Â*æ©:§ ”„[°=Â[w§4ì¢ÇpùÓ…zI²:É7Ë‹ŸÃIØk8}À[§¬+G¥šB†"¾fÝl¢ÁÙùî‰5û„_ô°¾#{f(â]•f­È0Œ+Isê;ò§Zæuò'f-p+[­ŒårÎF³Ìm^Thˆ'y}Õ­±ÏŠ~&q&•Ï›}†æDø[fáÕl8AáÔ9®¿ï$l]«lè¼²Ql°v¨ºþ¦$øh\H”°†™Üo]}Ë48Â&à^3æá x8»jW/#®•q†¯¯ƒx|yNÅÝ~ÀÐØ2†M·ÇG¦«Œ))J<ØøËõ¡Zþ[oÝšL·ž4A¼òyÏ,ÅóëƒÝ¸*útæí™à⌃÷|c ùè¸ãd á]q¬PËÿÊÉ4¨b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;=wMEÄtÆÆÆÆÆÆ_:::::™™™™™™™™™™™™b¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ 0ë©©©© B”” 0¤± D3U D-ˆ 0Kµµ AS ÆS 0¤! 0D½! A«"˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»¢„ˆ) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)GRA~1ø(ª ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒR~À$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPlaintiffs€allege€in€their€brief€that€Baptistððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€so€general€that€it€gave€them€noÐ ° Ðnotice€of€the€extent€to€which€they€would€be€required€by€the€trial€court€to€respond.€€As€we€choose€to€remand€this€case€onÐ tÄ Ðother€grounds,€we€are€not€required€to€decide€the€extent€to€which€Baptistððs€general€motion€for€summary€judgment€andÐ 8ˆ Ðnonspecific€accompanying€affidavit€required€a€response€from€plaintiffs,€if€it€did€so€at€all.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlanchard€v.€Kellumóó,€975Ð üL ÐS.W.2d€522,€525€(Tenn.€1998)€(holding€expert€physicianððs€affidavit€insufficient€because€it€ð ðmerely€contain[ed]€aÐ À Ðconclusory€statementðð);òòóó€òòMcCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2d€585€(Tenn.€1998)€(describing€burden€shiftingÐ „Ô Ðin€summary€judgment).€€Similarly,€we€are€not€required€to€rule€on€the€propriety€of€what€the€plaintiffs€describe€as€the€trialÐ H ˜ Ðcourtððs€ð ðsua€sponteðð€conversion€of€Baptistððs€general€motion€for€summary€judgment€into€a€motion€for€partial€summaryÐ  \ Ðjudgment. mÝ ƒR~À$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFederal€case€law€interpreting€rules€similar€to€our€own€are€persuasive€authority€for€purposes€of€construing€theÐ ° ÐTennessee€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòHenderson€v.€Bush€Bros.€&€Co.óó,€868€S.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1993);€òòContinental€Cas.€Co.€v.€Smithóó,€720Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€48€(Tenn.€1986).€€Those€decisions,€of€course,€are€non„binding€even€when€the€state€and€federal€rules€are€identical.€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòSeeóó€òòBowman€v.€Henardóó,€547€S.W.2d€527,€530€(Tenn.€1977). jÝ ƒR~À$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€decision€today€should€not€be€read€as€encouraging€trial€courts€to€certify€interlocutory€judgments€as€finalÐ ° Ðunder€Rule€54.02,€thereby€requiring€a€litigant€to€file€an€appeal€while€the€remainder€of€the€litigation€is€ongoing.€€òòóóPiecemealÐ tÄ Ðappellate€review€is€not€favored.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòBreakstone€v.€Home€Fed.€Sav.€&€Loan€Assððnóó,€539€S.W.2d€45,€45€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð 8ˆ ÐApp.€1976)€(noting€ð ðthe€inconvenience€and€costs€of€piecemeal€reviewðð).€€Orders€certifying€interlocutory€judgments€asÐ üL Ðfinal€ð ðshould€not€be€entered€routinelyðð€and€ð ðcannot€be€routinely€entered€as€a€courtesy€to€counsel.ðð€€òòHuntington€NatððlÐ À ÐBank€v.€Hookeróó,€840€S.W.2d€916,€921€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Such€orders€must€be€supported€by€a€record€indicatingÐ „Ô Ðwhy€there€is€ð ðno€just€reason€for€delay,ðð€and€will€preferably€include€specific€findings€of€fact€to€that€effect.€€òòId.óó€at€922. UÝ ƒR~À$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€question€of€what€standard€to€apply€in€ruling€on€a€Rule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€presented€inÐ ° ÐòòSchaeferóó€and€òòBradleyóó,€is€not€directly€at€issue€in€this€case€and€is€thus€beyond€our€reach.€€We€note,€however,€that€many€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€same€considerations€discussed€herein€would€be€applicable€when€a€litigant€submits€additional€evidence€as€part€of€aÐ 8ˆ ÐRule€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€a€summary€judgment. - ù-(|G2~À$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Må»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Må»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Må»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Må»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Må»»»ÔÑ8€¹XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îDäMåÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Må»îîDä #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€24,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X¹X»¼MåÔÌò òÔ#†¼Må»XX¹î#ÔREGINA€HARRIS,ó ó€ò òòòet€alóó.€v.€DR.€ANDREW€CHERN,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X¹X»¼MåÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ þ N ÐCircuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ê : Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96C„3667€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ Ö & ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<™` AßÐ šê  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1998„00250„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€December€8,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ •å  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<l` AßÐ m½  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X¹XXX¹ÔÔ#† ¼Må»X X¹w#ÔÔ€ X¹X» ¼MåÔWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€the€standard€to€be€applied€in€ruling€upon€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð h¸ Ð54.02€motion€to€revise€a€grant€of€partial€summary€judgment€based€upon€evidence€beyond€that€whichÐ T¤ Ðwas€before€the€court€when€the€motion€was€initially€granted.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€rejectÐ @ Ðthe€newly€discovered€evidence€rule€applied€by€the€trial€court€and€set€forth€in€òòBradley€v.€McLeodóó,€984Ð ,| ÐS.W.2d€929€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€We€adopt€a€test€requiring€the€trial€court€to€consider,€whenÐ h Ðapplicable:€€1)€the€movantððs€efforts€to€obtain€evidence€to€respond€to€the€motion€for€summaryÐ T Ðjudgment;€2)€the€importance€of€the€newly€submitted€evidence€to€the€movantððs€case;€3)€theÐ ð@ Ðexplanation€offered€by€the€movant€for€its€failure€to€offer€the€newly€submitted€evidence€in€its€initialÐ Ü, Ðresponse€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment;€4)€the€likelihood€that€the€nonmoving€party€will€sufferÐ È Ðunfair€prejudice;€and€5)€any€other€relevant€factor.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÐ ´ Ðof€Appeals€and€remand€to€the€trial€court€for€application€of€this€standard.Ô#†X¹XX X¹Ú#ÔÐ  ð ÐÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;Ð xÈ ÐJudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€Reversed,€Case€Remanded€to€Trial€Courtó óÐ d´ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJanice€M.€Holder,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,óó€andÐ