Farrow vs. Ogle
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Lambert vs. Invacare
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Revels vs. Revels
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Britton vs. Britton
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
|
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Engman vs. Vista Mutual Funds
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Odom vs. City of Chattanooga
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ragon vs. O'Charley's
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Henry vs. Nova
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frazier vs. Cocke
|
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
West vs. Luna
|
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
|
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
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.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
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
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.
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
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
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
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 |