Billy Steagall vs. Nancy Steagall
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Hillyer vs. Charles Hillyer
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Hillyer vs. Charles Hillyer
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Suzette Marie Elder vs. Sidney Lee Elder
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Street vs. Waddell
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
McKinley vs. Holt
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Dpt. Human Services vs. Whaley
|
Court of Appeals | ||
O'Bryant vs. Reeder Chevrolet
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Neas vs. Kerns
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
McNair vs. Smith
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Norris vs. Gounaris
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Patricia Anne Pehlman v. Gregory Lawrence Pehlman and Sobieski and Associates
In this action Patricia Anne Pehlman essentially seeks a declaration that marital property awarded to her in a divorce is not subject to a lien in favor of the intervenor.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Conister Trust v. Boating Corp. of America & Villas-Afloat
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Paula H. Chaffin, Manny Formigo, and Brenda Thurman, et al., v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd, A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, et al.
Paula Chaffin, Manny Formigo, Brenda Thurman, Brent Mezzacasa, Maria 3 Rodriguez, Robert Kirk, Lloyd Ramer, Jerry Knott, and Mike Freeman (“Plaintiffs”), who were appointed by the trial court as class representatives in this conditionally certified class action, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against four separate cruise line businesses, which included: (1) Norwegian Cruise Line Limited f/k/a Kloster Cruise Limited (“Norwegian”); (2) Carnival Corporation and/or Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Carnival”); (3) Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (“Royal Caribbean”); and (4) Princess Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Princess”). Plaintiffs’ claims were based upon alleged Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations and upon alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based upon forum selection clauses contained in written cruise contracts. Based upon the following, we find that the subject forum selection clauses are neither invalid based upon fraud nor unenforceable based upon unreasonableness. Moreover, we find that the subject forum selection clauses do not contravene a strong Tennessee public policy. Accordingly, we find that the forum selection clauses are enforceable and that the trial court’s dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Luvana Leean Tudors vs. Carl William Bell, Jr., - Concurring
This is an appeal of two ten-day sentences for criminal contempt. We find that the procedural requirements for a sentence for criminal contempt have not been satisfied. We, therefore, reverse the lower court’s order. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Remington Investments, Inc., v. Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth Obenauf
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the trial court domesticating a Connecticut judgment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-6-101 et seq. against both defendants. I. The Connecticut Action In September 1990, Connecticut Savings Bank brought suit in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut against Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth H. Obenauf on a promissory note in the amount of $34,000, executed by Ronald S. Obenauf and dated March 27, 1990. Plaintiff alleged that it was the current holder of the promissory note and that Ronald S. Obenauf had failed to make monthly payments in accordance therewith. The bank demanded judgment of the amount of the promissory note together with nterest and costs. The bank further sought fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, asserting that plaintiff had been harmed by the failure of the defendant to make payment on the promissory note. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Doyle Shirt Manufacturing Corporation, v. T. Michael O'Mara, et al.
This appeal involves the requirement of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.01 that pleadings be signed by an attorney or by a party if that party is not represented by an attorney. Finding that the plaintiff did not comply with Rule 11 within the statutory period of limitations, the Putnam County Chancery Court granted summary judgment to the defendant. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Kaye Thomas v. Johnny Wayne Thomas
This appeal involves a petition to modify an award of alimony. Appellant, Johnny Wayne Thomas (Husband), appeals the order of the trial court denying Husband’s petition to modify by deletion an award of alimony in futuro awarded to Appellee, Brenda Kaye Thomas (Wife). |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
Greg Townshend v. Erin Blanding Bingham
This appeal involves a petition to modify child custody. Respondent-Appellant, Erin Blanding Bingham (Mother), appeals from the order of the trial court granting the petition to modify custody filed by Petitioner-Appellee, Thomas Gregory Townshend (Father). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Carlisa Toney. a minor, by next friend, parent and guardian, Vernioca M. Toney, Individually, v. Bill Cunningham, Mrs. Bill (Ardia) Cunningham, Percy L. Ward and Mrs. Percy L. (Mary) Ward
In this wrongful death action, the trial court granted a motion to quash process and dismiss complaint filed by Defendants Percy and Mary Ward. Additionally, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Bill and Ardia Cunningham. Plaintiff Veronica Toney appeals the ruling of the trial court regarding the motion to quash process and dismiss complaint as well as the motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of J.B. Warren, Deceased
Respondent Anita W. Goode LeCornu (Respondent) appeals the trial court’s judgment admitting to probate the will of J. B. Warren, Jr. (Testator). We vacate the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the court erred in ruling that the Testator did not effectively revoke one of the will’s provisions. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Ray Darris Thompson v. Betty Hammond, et al. - Concurring
Plaintiff Ray Darris Thompson appeals the trial court’s final order entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Appellees Betty Hammond, Vernon Brown, June Wesson, Bruce MacDonald, and Christine Bradley. We reverse the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that the trial court erred in granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without considering Thompson’s motion to compel discovery. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Billy Wesson and Diane Wesson v. Woodworks, Inc. v. Larry Cupples, D/B/A Construction Company
Defendant Woodworks, Inc., appeals the circuit court’s final judgment in the amount |
Madison | Court of Appeals |