Joey Brown, as next friend and natural guardian of Mitchell W. Brown, v. Walmart Discount Cities
In this slip and fall case in which a child slipped on some ice cubes in the vestibule of a large department store, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but attributed 70 % of the fault to the unknown person who placed or dropped the ice on the floor. Ruling on a post-trial motion, the trial judge held that the store’s fault was 100% because the plaintiff could not sue the unknown tortfeasor. On appeal, the defendant asserts that there is no evidence to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred in modifying the jury’s verdict with respect to the degree of fault. We find that there is evidence from which the jury could have found that the store was negligent and that the store cannot attribute part of the fault to the unknown tortfeasor. We, therefore, affirm the lower court’s judgment. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
The State of Tennessee filed a petition to rehear in the above styled case on November 24, 1997. The State contends this court should rehear the case pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, it contends our decision 1) conflicts with existing case law, 2) conflicts with a principle of law, and 3) overlooks a material fact upon which the parties were not heard. It is the opinion of this court that the motion is not well taken and, therefore, should be denied. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Perry and Doris Perry, v. Donald Van Hise and Josephine Van Hise, Individually and D/B/A Van Hise Construction Company
This appeal involves the construction of a home. Plaintiffs engaged one of the defendants, Donald Van Hise, (hereafter, the defendant) to construct a home on their property. On May 24, 1994, defendant signed a proposal to construct the house, reserving the right to withdraw the proposal within 30 days, if not accepted by plaintiff. One of the plaintiffs signed an acceptance of the proposal. The other did not. On June 25, 1994, defendant tendered another proposal on different terms, which proposal was accepted by both plaintiffs. The second proposal contained an estimated time of completion of 3-1/2 - 4-1/2 months. Both proposals contained a base contract price subject to revision for changes during construction. Both contracts refer to “plans and specifications” but the record contains no plan and only a partial set of specifications. The plans and specifications were not specifically prepared for plaintiffs, but were “generic,” that is, sold on the general market, to be altered as desired; and alterations were made, producing part of the present controversy. Promptly after the second proposal was accepted. |
Court of Appeals | ||
John Edmund Streun vs. Delores Jean Streun - Concurring
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court awarded Delores Jean Streun (“Wife”) an absolute divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, divided the parties’ property, and ordered John Edmund Streun (“Husband”) to pay periodic alimony in futuro of $350 per month. Husband appealed, arguing, in effect, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s determination that Wife was entitled to periodic alimony in futuro. Wife contends that the alimony award is appropriate. She submits an additional issue -- that, in her words, “the trial court erred in not enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement of November 7, 1995.” |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
John L. Miller v. Scott D. Williams
This appeal questions the adequacy of a jury’s verdict. The plaintiff, John L. Miller (“Miller”)1, alleged in his complaint that he sustained physical and emotional injuries and medical expenses when his automobile was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant, Scott D. Williams (“Williams”).2 After Williams admitted liability at trial, the jury awarded Miller damages of $45,000. Miller then filed a motion for an additur or a new trial. The trial court denied his motion, and this appeal followed. The sole issue3 on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to suggest an additur or grant a new trial due to the alleged inadequacy of the jury’s award. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. Anna Patricia Malone -Concurring
The trial court’s judgment terminated the parental rights of Anna Patricia Malone (“Mother”) in and to her children, Willard Fillmore Rednower (DOB: October 1, 1983) and Jessie Mae Rednower (DOB: September 15, 1985).1 She appealed, arguing, in her words, that the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) “failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family as required by T.C.A. [§] 37-1-166"; that the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s “substantial noncompliance” with a plan of |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Manuel Branch, Jr., v. Rodney McCroskey and Governor John Sevier Memorial Association
In this action, the appellant (plaintiff) sought a recovery for damages sustained to his pickup truck, lost earnings and related expenses caused by a collision between his vehicle and a horse belonging to the defendant, Rodney McCroskey. The accident occurred in the plaintiff's lane of travel on a public road, generally referred to as the Governor John Sevier HIghway. The defendant, Rodney McCroskey, filed a cross-claim against the defendant, Governor John Sevier Memorial Association. He, owever, was permitted to take a voluntary non-suit. The case was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict for the appelles (defendants) in the original action. Judgment for the defendants was duly entered on the verdict. The plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or in the alternative for a new trial. The motion was overruled and this appeal resulted. We affimr the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Steve Payne v. Jan Savell, C.S.J. Travel, Inc., and Carleen Stephens
Steve Payne (“Payne”), a stockholder and former employee of CSJ Travel, Inc. (“CSJ”), sued CSJ and the corporation’s other stockholders, Jan Savell (“Savell”) and Carleen Stephens (“Stephens”)1, seeking damages for the defendants’ alleged breach of a contract to repurchase Payne’s CSJ stock. Payne’s action was filed in the Blount County General Sessions Court at a time when earlier litigation between Payne and CSJ in the Blount County Chancery Court was pending on appeal to this court. In the instant action, the defendants allowed a default judgment to be taken against them and thereafter appealed to the Blount County Circuit Court for a de novo trial. The Circuit Court denied the defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment, and instead granted summary judgment in favor of Payne and against CSJ for $6,666.64. Payne then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his suit against Savell and Stephens. The defendants appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Circuit Court erred in failing to grant them summary judgment, and erred in granting Payne a money judgment against CSJ. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
McCallie Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. D/B/A McCallie Health Center v. Erwin Dinsmore, Police Commissioner and the City of Chattanooga
The appellant (plaintiff) instituted this action against the appelles (defendants) in an attempt to gain access to copies of police reports of automobile accidens investigated by the Chattanooga Police Department. The plaintiff had requested by letter to inspect "[a]ll traffic accident reports maintained by your department which relate to any accident occuring with in seven days preceding the date of this letter. "The defendants had refused access to the plaintiff on the theory that such accident reports are made confidential under the provisions of T.C.A. § § 5 5 -10 - 108 , ets eq . The action was brought pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Public Records Act codified in T.C. A . § § 10 -7-503 , et seq. The trial court denied relief and this appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
John D. Lockridge v. Mary Janet Wise Lockridge - Concurring
In this post-divorce case, John D. Lockridge (husband) appeals the trial court's judgment ordering him to pay $16, 021.70 in educational expenses incurred by his former wife, Janet Wise Lockridge (wife), pursuant to a contractual agreement between them made shortly before the divorce. The husband also appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the wife in the amount of $20, 552.57. We affirm the trial court's judgment in part and reverse in part. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Underground II, Inc., D/B/A The Boiler Room, v. The City of Knoxville, et al.
In this action the plaintiff-appellant (plaintiff) challenges the validity of an ordinance of the City of Knoxville which prohibits the practice of "brown bagging" (bringing your own alcoholic beverage) into restaurants, clubs, and businesses between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday and 1:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Sundays. It further makes it unlawful for businesses of any kind to permit or allow any customer to "bring in, carry, or possess, or consume beer or alcoholic beverages" during specified times as set out above. The proprietors of the designated places are also prohibited from selling any non-intoxicating beverabe to be mixed with and/or consumed with alcoholic beverages between the designated times. The trial court upheld the validity of the ordinance. We reverse the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Clarence Washington
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Dillard vs. The Vanderbilt University
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Oolie vs. Qureshi
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gordon McGee v. Carl Pippin, Helen Pippin, et al. - Concurring
This is a suit by a stockholder of an insolvent corporation, against another stockholder, his wife and an employee, seeking judgment against them for dissipation of assets of the corporation, recovery of money due from debtors of the corporation and liquidation of the corporation for the benefit of creditors. Although not designated such in the complaint, the suit appears to be a suit for a receivership. Matter of Liquidation of United American Bank in Knoxville. Tenn. 1987, 743 S.W.2d 911. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Horton vs. Hughes
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tuttle vs. Tuttle
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9605-CH-00229
|
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Crews vs. Dexter Road Partners, et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ellen Marcus vs. Louis Marcus
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stevenson vs. Stevenson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Williams vs. Comer
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Turner vs. Turner
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell vs. Archibald & Metro. Gov't.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Someday Baby, Inc. vs. Entertainment Int'l.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
