APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a proceeding for judicial review of the action of the Metropolitan Council, the elected legislative body of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, in refusing to concur in the action of the Metropolitan Planning Commission approving a "Planned Unit Development." The Trial Court reversed the action, and the City filed notice of its "intention to appeal" which, in the absence of challenge, will be treated as a notice of appeal.

In this dispute between plaintiff borrower and defendant lender, the Trial Court entered summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff in the trial court claimed title to a disputed area of land by adverse possession. The chancellor found that the disputed property was not within the calls of the plaintiff's deed and that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prescriptive title by twenty years of adverse possession. We affirm.

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.

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.

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.

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.