Daniel B. Taylor v. State of Tenneessee - Concurring
Daniel P. Taylor (“claimant”) filed this suit against the State of Tennessee (?defendant” or “State”) in the Tennessee Claims Commission for damages he allegedly sustained due to the malpractice of his court- appointed attorney. The Claims Commission granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the commissioner erred in so doing. We find no error and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Dale Cobb v. Douglas R. Beier - Concurring
The determinative issue on appeal is whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant did not file notice of the appeal with the clerk of the appellate court designated in the notice of appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Dale Cobb, v. Douglas R. Beier - Dissenting
While I concede tha the majority opinion is technically correct and the reasoning employed comports with previous case law, I observe that this Court, or at least this member of this Court, has routinely overruled such motions when the only defect as to the serviceof thenotice of appeal is failure to file a copy with the Clerk of this Court.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
James R. Tully, Jr., v. USA Wireless, Inc., PMT Investments, Inc., and Patrick M. Thompson, in both his individual and corporate capacity
The issues in this appeal are (1) whether the chancellor erred in granting a judgment against a corporation for back wages, (2) whether the chancellor should have pierced the corporate veil and granted a judgment against the corporation’s principal shareholder and (3) whether the court erred in dismissing the fraud claims against the principal shareholder. We affirm the chancellor’s decision in part and reverse on the fraud claims made directly against the principal shareholder. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ernest White Patton, III, v. Linda Harvey Patton
In this divorce action, the husband appeals from the Trial Court's determination of the classificatin of property as marital property and the division of the marital estate. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robert Dale Cobb, v. Douglas R. Beier
The determinative issue on appeal is whether the appeals should be dismissed because the appellant did not file notice of the appeal with the clerk of the appellant court designated in the notice of appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In Re the Estate of Howard D. Smith, Deceased, Shaun Murray, v. Jennie C. Smith, Individually and as Conservator for Howard D. Smith and Western Surety Co., Manufacturer
This case involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the conservator of an estate. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove a breach of fiduciary duty. We find that the trial court misapplied the burden of proof and reverse the trial court’s decision. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Gwendolyn G. Thompson (Browning) vs. Donald Louise Thompson
Petitioner-appellant, Gwendolyn G. Thompson (Browning) (Wife), appeals from the order of the trial court awarding respondent-appellee, Donald Lewis Thompson (Husband), attorney fees in the amount of $500.00. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-CH-00430
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9510-CH-00486
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-CV-00462
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CH-00533
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CV-00502
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CV-00502
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CV-00504
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Evelyn Diane Beecham vs. Tom Wayne Beecham
The issues raised in this divorce case involve the award of alimony, attorney’s fees, and discretionary costs. We modify the lower court’s judgment to delete the award of alimony in solido. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9603-CH-00099
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9603-CH-00132
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CH-00522
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9512-CH-00571
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Danmole v. Charles L. Wright
Defendant, Charles L. Wright, has appealed from the judgment of the trial court entered on the jury's verdict for plaintiff, Margaret Danmole. The jury awarded plaintiff $17,000.00 for her injuries and damages sustained as the result of an automobile accident. In the instant case, we find no evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Moreover, there is not even a scintilla of evidence in this record that the jury which tried this case was anything other than fair and impartial. Therefore, it results that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further necessary proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9512-PB-00544
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9602-CH-00063
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9603-CH-00102
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9603-CH-00131
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |