Anthony Lee Eden, v. CherylAnn Eden
The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion, it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert A. Hewgley, Deane Pritchett, and H. Mel Weaver, v. Jose A. Vivo and wife Peggy M. Vivo
This appeal involves the enforcement of a 47-year-old restrictive covenant in a residential subdivision in Tullahoma. After a physician converted one of the homes in the subdivision into a medical clinic, a group of property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Coffee County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce a restrictive covenant requiring the property in the subdivision to be used for residential purposes. The trial court, sitting without a jury, determined that the restrictive covenant remained enforceable, directed the physician to remove an illuminated exterior sign, and awarded attorney’s fees to the property owners. On this appeal, the physician takes issue with the enforcement of the restrictive covenant and with the award of attorney’s fees. While we affirm the enforcement of the restrictive covenant, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Frank McNeil, MD. and Janet McNeil, M.D. v. TN. Board of Medical Examiners - Concurring
The captioned petitioners sought judicial review and reversal of the administrative order of the respondent Board subjecting them to discipline for professional misconduct. From a judgment affirming the administrative order, the petitioners have appealed, presenting the issue for review in the following terms: The Petitioner-Appellants, Frank McNiel, M.D. and Janet McNiel, M.D., respectfully submit that the issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners’ decision to discipline their license to practice medicine in Tennessee should be reversed pursuant to T.C.A. §4-5-322(h) of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, in that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Consumer Advocate, v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority and United Cities Gas Company
The petitioner, Tennessee Consumer Advocate, has petitioned this Court for review of administrative decisions of the Tennessee Public Services Commission pursuant to T.R.A.P. Rule 12. By order entered by this Court on October 3, 1996, the review is limited to an order entered by the Commission on May 3, 1996. However, the circumstances stated hereafter require reference to an order previously entered by the Tennessee Public Service Commission on May 12, 1995. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard E. Finch vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. - Concurring
This appeal addresses the issue of whether the “innocent co-insured doctrine,” first recognized by our supreme court in Spence v. Allstate Insurance Co., 883 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1994), should be extended so as to permit the appellant, Richard E. Finch (Finch) to recover under an insurance policy, issued by the appellee, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (TFMIC), for loss to property held jointly with his co-insured spouse whose intentional acts caused the loss. The trial court interpreting Tennessee case law to disallow such recovery primarily “on the basis of policy considerations,” entered a summary judgment for TFMIC.1 Finch challenges the correctness of that decision. For reasons to be set forth, we reverse and remand. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Frank McNeil, MD. and Janet McNeil, M.D., et. ux. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners - Concurring
The orders handed down by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners on March 6, 1995 can stand only if the board’s conclusions are supported by substantial and material evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h)(5) (Supp. 1996). Cases of this sort require either admissions by the accused physician, Williams v. State Dep’t of Health & Env’t, 880 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), or expert proof concerning the standard of professional conduct alleged to have been violated. Williams v. Tennessee Bd. of Medical Examiners, App. No. 01A01-9402-CH-00060, 1994 WL 420910, at *6-8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 1994) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). |
Court of Appeals | ||
William Depriest, Gates-Pate-McDaniel, Henry H Headden, Joel P. Morris, Maurice Pinson, Richard R. Standel, Jr., and W.O. Vaughan, Jr., v. 1717-19 West End Associates., et. al
The captioned plaintiffs have appealed from the summary dismissal of their various claims by the trial court. The various claims and defenses on appeal arose from a failed investment scheme, and are illustrated by the following issues presented by the parties: |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE: Estate of Foster Hume, III; The University of the South v. Meredith Klank - Concurring
The University of the South, residuary legatee under the will of Foster Hume, deceased, has appealed from the judgment of the Probate Court holding that a specific devise to Meredith Klank was not extinguished by ademption and therefore the subject of the specific devise did not become a part of the residuary estate. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. Rose
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State, DHS Assignee of: Stanley vs. Hooper
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Klindt vs. Klindt
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
The Tennessean vs. Electric Power Bd. of Nashville
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas, et. ux. vs. Crockett, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas, et. ux. vs. Crockett, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
J. Harold Shankle Co. vs. Bedford Co. Bd.
|
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Smith vs. Duncan
|
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Fisher & Bell vs. Metro Gov't.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Houser vs. Traughber
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. Burson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9604-CH-00362
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Brooks vs. Brooks
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jones vs. Jones
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm & Casualty vs. Pickral, et. ux.
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
