01A01-9604-CV-00160
|
Stewart | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9509-CH-00196
|
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Musgrove vs. Coffey
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9602-CH-00054
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James v. Doramus
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Forbes vs. Wilson Co. Emergency
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Forbes vs. Wilson Co. Emergency
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9504-CV-00068
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9505-CH-00104
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9507-CH-00154
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9508-CH-00164
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9510-CV-00217
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Craig v. Gabbert
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9504-CV-00095
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9506-CH-00128
|
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9601-CV-00038
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9601-CV-00038
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9602-CV-00078
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9511-CH-00501
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9603-CH-00125
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9504-CH-00080
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Harold Wayne Gibson, and wife, Sylvia Gibson, v. Kit G. McGlothlin, D/B/A Kit McGlothlin Builders, Inc., et al.
This is an action for damages for breach of a construction contract and of an implied warranty of good workmanship and materials and for negligent construction. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Herman Davis and wife, Darnell Davis, v. Paul A. Hatcher, Sr., M.D.
This malpractice action was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. It arose from a routine prostate resection which went awry, resulting in adverse consequences to the plaintiff. A device referred to as a resectoscope manufactured by the Circon ACMI Ohio Manufacturing Company,1 malfunctioned while being used by and under the control of the defendant, Dr. Paul Hatcher [hereafter, the “defendant”]. It is not disputed that a portion of the penis of the plaintiff, Herman |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Herman Davis and wife, Darnell Davis, v. Paul A. Hatcher, Sr., M.D.
This malpractice action was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. It arose from a routine prostate resection which went awry, resulting in adverse consequences to the plaintiff. A device referred to as a resectoscope manufactured by the Circon ACMI Ohio Manufacturing Company,1 malfunctioned while being used by and under the control of the defendant, Dr. Paul Hatcher [hereafter, the “defendant”]. It is not disputed that a portion of the penis of the plaintiff, Herman Davis [hereafter, “plaintiff”], was either chemically, thermally or electrically burned away, with disastrous results unnecessary here to be recounted. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |