X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
CNL Insurance vs. Smith
|
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy R. Ganzevoort, v. Richard B. Russell, Martha T. Russell, and Jim Cassetty, D/B/A Cassetty Realty
The Circuit Court of Sumner County awarded the purchaser of a home a judgment against the sellers and their real estate agent, for deceptive practices as defined in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Because we find that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the plaintiff suffered any ascertainable harm from a deceptive act, we reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Walter Lee Steele and Jennie Brown, Individually and as Next-of-Kin of or Guardian of Melvin Lee Steele, Deceased, v. Tennessee Jaycees, Inc., et al.
The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Tennessee Jaycees and the other appellees, on the ground that the statute of limitations had passed prior to the filing of the appellants' wrongful death complaint against them. Because we do not find that the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stones River Utilities, Inc., v. Metropoltian Government of Nashville, Davidison County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
This is a contract dispute in which the chancellor found that the uncontradicted proof showed that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the acts alleged in the complaint. We reverse on the single ground of estoppel and remand for further proceedings on that issue alone. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria Keene and husband, Edward Keene, v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Gloria and Edward Keene, from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to defendant/appellee, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Cracker Barrel"). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William Barry Martin, v. Marny Anne Martin
In this divorce case, the defendant/wife has appealed from that portion of the divorce decree which granted to the plaintiff/husband sole custody of the daughter of the parties, aged 4 1/2 years at the time of judgment, 5 years at the present time. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William Wayne Bray, v. Wanda Lee Jones Bray
In this case the husband has appealed the trial judge's award of $14,750 to the wife as her share of the marital property. The trial judge made the following findings: that the husband's property had increased in value during the marriage in the amount, when added to the value of some property acquired by the parties, of $34,000; that the cattle acquired by the parties had a negative value of $4,500, leaving a net value of $29,500; that the wife had made a contribution to the preservation and appreciation of the property; that the wife had a greater need than the husband; and that the husband had a greater ability to produce income in the future. Taking the net increase in the marital estate of $29,500 the trial judge then awarded half of it to the wife. |
Clay | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9506-CV-00209
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9505-CH-00189
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Michael Cantrell v. Walker Die Casting
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, Grandparents, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley)
This appeal arises from post-divorce decree proceedings to increase and enforce child |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley) - Concurring
In 1987 the United States Supreme Court placed limits on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in federal court. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 107 S. Ct. 2124 (1987). This appeal calls upon us to decide whether similar limitations should be placed on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in state court. The majority has declined to adopt the reasoning of the Young decision based on an |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re: Estate of Harold L. Jenkins, Deceased, Hugh C. Carden and Donald Garis, Co-Executors/Appellees, v. Billy R. Parks
The claimant, Billy R. Parks, has appealed from a summary judgment of the Probate Court dismissing his claim against the captioned estate. Appellant presents the issues in the following form: 1. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks had no legal basis for making a claim on the theories of implied or quasi contract, or a theory of unjust enrichment of Mr. Jenkins. 2. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks could not recover under an implied or quasi contract theory because of the existence of an express contract between the parties. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Allen D. Heflin and wife Jean LaRue Heflin, as natural parents and next-of-kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v. Stewart County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
I concur with the result of the majority's opinion but add this separate opinion to state my understanding of the source and nature of the duty of prison officials to persons who are placed involuntarily in their custody. |
Stewart | Court of Appeals | |
Allen D. Heflin and wife, Jean LaRue Heflin, as Natural Parents and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v., Stewart County, Tennessee, et al.
The captioned plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their suit against the defendant, Stewart County, Tennessee, arising out of the suicide of Hugh Allen Heflin in the Stewart County Jail. No complaint is made on appeal as to the summary dismissal of all other defendants. This suit is limited to damages for pain and suffering of deceased. Damages for wrongful death have been recovered in federal court. |
Stewart | Court of Appeals | |
Mid-South Bank & Trust Co., V.R. Williams & Co., and Franklin County Bank, v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr., and Paux Max Quandt, III
This appeal represents a consolidation of three actions. The first case, styled V.R. Williams & Company v. Paul M. Quandt and Nelle Quandt, is an appeal to Circuit Court from a judgment in the General Sessions Court of Franklin County finding Paul Quandt indebted to V.R. Williams & Co. in the amount of $3664.69 for past due insurance premiums. The second case, styled In Re: Estate of Paul Max Quandt, Deceased, is a probate proceeding filed in the Chancery Court of Franklin County to administer the estate of Paul Max Quandt. The only issues in the probate proceeding heard on consolidation concern creditors' claims filed against Paul Quandt's estate and the exceptions filed thereto. The third case, styled Mid-South Bank & Company, V.R. Williams & Company and Franklin County Bank v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr. and Paul Max Quandt, III., is a Chancery Court action to set aside fraudulent conveyances of property owned by Paul M. Quandt Defendants/Appellants |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Pewitt, v. Lillie Buford, A. Cliff Frensley and Williamson County, Tennessee
This appeal involves a suit primarily based onthe Public Employee Political Freedom Act of 1980, T.C.A. §§ 8-50-601 - 8-50-604 (1993) (hereinafter PEPFA). Plaintiff, Judy Pewitt, appeals from the circuit court's summary judgment order dismissing Pewitt's PEPFA and retaliatory discharge claims against defendants, Lillie Buford, Cliff Frensley, and Williamson County |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles K. Newsom, v. Textron Aerostructures, a division of Avco, Inc.; and Gary L. Smith, individually
This appeal involves a suit brought by an employee against his employer asserting that the employer's actions, in connection with the employee's demotion and subsequent termination, violated The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), T.C.A. § 4-21-101 (1991), et. seq. The employee also alleges that the employer's actions in connection with the demotion and termination were slanderous and constituted outrageous conduct. Plaintiff employee, Charles K. Newsom, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Textron Aerostructures, Inc., and Gary Smith,1 and the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in so doing. The pertinent facts are as follows. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Maxie L. Nichols and W. Max Nichols, v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp.
This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' fraud and contract allegations. Appellants are William Max Nichols, maker of certain notes representing student loans, and his father, Maxie L. Nichols, who was co-maker on said notes. The Appellee is Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), a non-profit corporation created by the General Assembly to guarantee and administer loans made by educational institution lenders to students attending post-secondary schools in Tennessee. T.C.A. § 49-4-203(1)- (3) (1990). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9505-CV-00143
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9507-GS-00217
|
Court of Appeals |