03A01-9709-CH-00387
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Farrow vs. Ogle
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Revels vs. Revels
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Margaret Engman vs. Vista Mutual Funds
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
|
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Odom vs. City of Chattanooga
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ragon vs. O'Charley's
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Henry vs. Nova
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frazier vs. Cocke
|
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
This case involves the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with a breach of a residential construction contract. Defendant, Bill Hayes, appeals the judgment of the trial court on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Linda Mires, $5,000.00 for 1Rufus and Linda Mires filed the original suit in April 1995 but took a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Mires died after the suit was refiled, so Mrs. Mires amended the complaint to list herself as plaintiff, individually, and as the executrix of the estate of Rufus Mires. Since Mr. Mires was alive throughout the events that precipitated this suit, we use the plural “plaintiffs” throughout this opinion. 2 violation of TCPA and the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $5,907.50 in attorney fees and expenses. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
West vs. Luna
|
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
|
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
This is an action on a promissory note. In 1993, plaintiff, Wanda Tate, sold her women's clothing store to the defendants, Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell and their corporatin, L'Argent, Inc. (collectively "buyers"). Several months after the sale, the buyers, dissatisfied with some of the inventory sold to them, tendered less than the full payment amount called for by the promissor note they had signed in partial consideration for the sale. Tate rejected the partial payment and sued for recovery of the full amount due under the terms of the note. The buyers argued tha Tate had made material misrepresentations regarding some of the the inventory, resulting in the value of the inventory they purchased being substantially less than anticipated at the time of the sale. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anna Lee Crisp, v. Irville C. Boring and wife, Wanda Sue Boring
This is a boundary dispute. The plaintiff alleges that the location of the boundary line between her property and the adjoining land of the defendants is shown by a survey made by Sterling Engineering, Inc. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip W. Twitty and Alice F. Twitty v. Young v. Kenton, Young, and Roy Edward Brown and Volunteer Realty Company of Knoxville, Inc.
On October 26, 1993, plaintiffs purchased an new residence in Oak Ridge from the defendants. Thereafter, the unfinished basement of the residence flooded on several occasions after heavy rainfall. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
This is a divorce case. The parties, Granville Harvey Miller1 (Husband) and Linda Janiece Wright-Miller (Wife), were married for approximately 5 years before a final decree of divorce was entered in August 1997.2 During the marriage, the parties resided at a home located at 2166 Aztec Drive. On appeal, Husband challenges the correctness of the trial court’s classification of this property as marital as well as its determination that the asset is unencumbered. Husband contends that the true owner of the property is Heartland Investments, Inc. (Heartland), a corporation that he founded prior to the parties’ marriage and of which he is president and sole shareholder or, alternatively, that the parties own the property encumbered by a mortgage executed in favor of the corporation. Wife has also raised an issue with respect to the trial court’s finding that there was no increase in value of Heartland stock during the marriage. After review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We set forth our reasons below. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
R.S. Brandt, K.M. Lundin, M.I. Lundin, N.B. Lundin, and A.T. Wiltshire, Jr. v. BIB Enterprises, LTD., A Tennessee Limited Partnership, and Gregory Smith, Individually, and Virginia Abernethy
This cases involves a d ispute over a limited partnership. BIB Enterprises, Ltd. (“BIB”) was formed on December 30, 1982 for the stated purpose of acquiring real estate, equipment and other personal property of a Bonanza Restaurant in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Defendant-appellant Greg Smith was named General Partner. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Michael G. Binkley, et ux., et al. v. Rodney Trevor Medling
The captioned defendant has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court which reads in full as follows: This cause came on to be heard on this the 23rd day of July, 1997, before the Honorable Allen W. Wallace, Chancellor, upon stipulation of the parties, certified copies of various documents, statement of counsel, and upon the entire record. From all of which the Court finds that the Defendant improperly opened a cul-de-sac located on Timberland Drive, New Johnsonville, Tennessee, and Lot No. D-6 of the Countrywood Estates Subdivision, Section IV, and further that the Defendant violated the restrictions and protective covenants of Countrywood Estates Subdivision, Section IV, as a street or driveway to unrestricted and non-conforming adjoining property, and particularly the 11.7 acre tract that was purchased by the Defendant. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals |