COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Farrow vs. Ogle
03A01-9711-CV-00501

Court of Appeals

Lambert vs. Invacare
03A01-9802-CV-00071

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Revels vs. Revels
03A01-9803-CV-00104

Court of Appeals

Britton vs. Britton
03A01-9804-CV-00143

Greene Court of Appeals

Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
02A01-9706-CH-00131
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Chester Court of Appeals

Margaret Engman vs. Vista Mutual Funds
02A01-9706-PB-00132
Trial Court Judge: Walter Baker Harris

Madison Court of Appeals

Odom vs. City of Chattanooga
03A01-9710-CV-00480

Hamilton Court of Appeals

Ragon vs. O'Charley's
03A01-9711-CH-00499

Court of Appeals

Henry vs. Nova
03A01-9804-CH-00121

Court of Appeals

Frazier vs. Cocke
03A01-9804-CV-00128

Cocke Court of Appeals

West vs. Luna
01A01-9707-CH-00281
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb

Lincoln Court of Appeals

Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
01A01-9707-CH-00363
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

Fentress Court of Appeals

Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
01A01-9708-CH-00396
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell

Court of Appeals

Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
01A01-9709-CH-00480
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Williamson Court of Appeals

Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
01A01-9601-CV-00052
Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd

Court of Appeals

Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
02A01-9707-CV-00172
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Acree

This case involves the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with a breach of a residential construction contract. Defendant, Bill Hayes, appeals the judgment of the trial court on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Linda Mires, $5,000.00 for 1Rufus and Linda Mires filed the original suit in April 1995 but took a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Mires died after the suit was refiled, so Mrs. Mires amended the complaint to list herself as plaintiff, individually, and as the executrix of the estate of Rufus Mires. Since Mr. Mires was alive throughout the events that precipitated this suit, we use the plural “plaintiffs” throughout this opinion. 2 violation of TCPA and the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $5,907.50 in attorney fees and expenses.

Weakley Court of Appeals

Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
M2000-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9806-CV-00155
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Shelby Court of Appeals

Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
02A01-9708-CV-00177
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

Shelby Court of Appeals

Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
03A01-9710-CV-00459
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler A. Rosenbalm

This is an action on a promissory note. In 1993, plaintiff, Wanda Tate, sold her women's clothing store to the defendants, Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell and their corporatin, L'Argent, Inc. (collectively "buyers"). Several months after the sale, the buyers, dissatisfied with some of the inventory sold to them, tendered less than the full payment amount called for by the promissor note they had signed in partial consideration for the sale. Tate rejected the partial payment and sued for recovery of the full amount due under the terms of the note. The buyers argued tha Tate had made material misrepresentations regarding some of the the inventory, resulting in the value of the inventory they purchased being substantially less than anticipated at the time of the sale.

Court of Appeals

Anna Lee Crisp, v. Irville C. Boring and wife, Wanda Sue Boring
03A01-9711-CV-00527
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Dale Young

This is a boundary dispute. The plaintiff alleges that the location of the boundary line between her property and the adjoining land of the defendants is shown by a survey made by Sterling Engineering, Inc.

Blount Court of Appeals

Phillip W. Twitty and Alice F. Twitty v. Young v. Kenton, Young, and Roy Edward Brown and Volunteer Realty Company of Knoxville, Inc.
03A01-9801-CH-00031
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick D. McDonald

On October 26, 1993, plaintiffs purchased an new residence in Oak Ridge from the defendants. Thereafter, the unfinished basement of the residence flooded on several occasions after heavy rainfall.

Knox Court of Appeals

Jimmy Key, v. Tennessee Board of Paroles
01A01-9610-CH-00480
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a dispute between the Board of Paroles and a prisoner convicted of being an habitual criminal over the inmate’s right to custodial parole and the calculation of his sentence credits. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted the Board’s motion to dismiss, and the prisoner has appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the prisoner’s suit in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).

Davidson Court of Appeals

Daniel Scott Bradley, et ux. LInda Bradley, v. Geneva Lynn McCord McLeod, et vir Rodrick McLeod
01A01-9702-CH-00062
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark

This case involves a dispute between two neighbors in the Fairview community of Williamson County concerning the use of a gravel driveway. Three years after purchasing a tract of land on which portions of the driveway were located, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Williamson County to quiet title to the portions of the driveway they believed to be on their property. Their neighbors responded that the driveway was their only access to a pubic road and that they had acquired a right to use the driveway by adverse possession. After the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ uncontested motion for summary judgment, the defendants filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion asserting that they had an “easement of presumption” to use the driveway. The trial court denied the post-judgment motion on the ground that the new defense had not been timely raised. On this appeal, the losing property owners take issue with the trial court’s decision to grant the summary judgment and to deny their post-judgment motion. We affirm the summary judgment.

Williamson Court of Appeals

Michael G. Binkley, et ux., et al. v. Rodney Trevor Medling
01A01-9708-CH-00421
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

The captioned defendant has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court which reads in full as follows: This cause came on to be heard on this the 23rd day of July, 1997, before the Honorable Allen W. Wallace, Chancellor, upon stipulation of the parties, certified copies of various documents, statement of counsel, and upon the entire record. From all of which the Court finds that the Defendant improperly opened a cul-de-sac located on Timberland Drive, New Johnsonville, Tennessee, and Lot No. D-6 of the Countrywood Estates Subdivision, Section IV, and further that the Defendant violated the restrictions and protective covenants of Countrywood Estates Subdivision, Section IV, as a street or driveway to unrestricted and non-conforming adjoining property, and particularly the 11.7 acre tract that was purchased by the Defendant.

Humphreys Court of Appeals