Ronald D. McKinna, v. Lasco, Inc.
We have for consideration a thoughtful petition to re-hear in which the employer insists that our enquiry was abortive since we failed (1) to examine the proffered reason for the employee’s termination, (2) to examine the plaintiff’s evidence of pretext, and (3) to find that age discrimination was a motivating factor in the determination. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
United American Bank of Memphis, v. Mylan Financial Services, Inc. and Stanley R. Waxman, Stanley R. Waxman, v. United American Bank of Memphis
This case involves an action to recover on a loan guarantee. The trial court entered a |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Nashville Fire Fighters Association Local 763 and B.R. Hall, Jr., v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.
This case is before the Court on appeal from the Chancery Court of Davidson |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Jordan, v. Frances J. Marchetti
This case involves an action for rescission of a deed to land allegedly procured through promissory fraud and duress. The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that it had been brought after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Kevin Nelson, v. The Application Group, Inc.
I concur with the court’s conclusion that The Application Group, Inc. is entitled to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) relief under the facts of this case. However, I have prepared this separate opinion to state that I do not concur with the court’s sweeping conclusion that “Rule 60.02(1) relief should be granted when the lawyer realizes his [or her] oversight and takes steps to correct it.” I know of no precedent for the notion that efforts to correct an error, by themselves, are always enough to entitle a lawyer to post-judgment relief. They are only one of the many factors to consider when engaging in the fact-intensive analysis required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Prism Partners, L.P., v. Michael D. Figlio, v. Prism Partners, L.P. Larry Cherry
In this unlawful detainer action, Defendant Michael D. Figlio appeals the trial court’s final judgment which held that Plaintiff/Appellee Prism Partners, L.P., had free and clear 2 title to the subject property, ordered Figlio to vacate the subject property, and dismissed Figlio’s counterclaim for conspiracy. The trial court’s judgment also dismissed Figlio’s thirdparty complaint for fraud and conspiracy against Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Larry Cherry. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s judgment, and we remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Ann Wolfe, Bette L. Roberts, Patricia Pelton, Odie L. Mann, Boyd Stubblefield, and Richard G. Ray vs. The University of Tennessee and the University of Tennessee Space Institute - Concurring
I concur with the results of the Court’s opinion. Based on my independent review of the evidence both in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, I have determined that the six plaintiffs have not produced evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the reasons given by the University of Tennessee Space Institute for the adverse employment actions taken against each of the plaintiffs were pretextual or that the employment actions were taken for prohibited reasons. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In re: Ernest L. White, Conservatorship, v. Loretta DeLoach, Substitute Conservator
This appeal involves the adequacy of a conservator’s accounting of a disabled person’s estate. After the conservator filed her final accounting in the Probate Court of Davidson County, the personal representative of the disabled person’s estate objected to the accuracy and completeness of the accounting. The probate court conducted a bench trial and approved the conservator’s amended final accounting. On this appeal, the personal representative asserts that the final accounting was irregular and that the conservator has failed to account for all of the disabled person’s funds. We have determined that the conservator’s final accounting cannot be reconciled and, therefore, that the order approving the final accounting must be vacated. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Southern Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc., v. Ashland Healthcare Center, Inc., et. al.
Defendant Ashland Healthcare Center, Inc. (Ashland), appeals the judgment entered against it in this breach of contract action. The contract at issue was between Plaintiff/Appellee Southern Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. (Southern Rehab), andOakmont Healthcare Center (Oakmont). In imposing liability against Ashland, the trial court ruled that Pete Prins, the administrator of Oakmont and an employee of third-party defendant Monarch Nursing Homes, Inc. (Monarch), had the authority to bind Ashland to the contract between Southern Rehab and Oakmont. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we reverse the judgment against Ashland and remand for further proceedings. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Knox County Education Association v. Knox County Board of Education, et al.
This is an action brought by the Knox County Education Association seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Knox County Board of Education and its then-superintendent, Allen Morgan. The trial court found that provisions of a private act granting tenure to principals employed in the Knox County School System were repealed and superseded by the enactment in 1992 of a public act, the Education Improvement Act, and that the private act, to the extent that it conflicts with the general law, violates Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court further found that Knox County principals are not members of the bargaining unit represented by the Knox County Education Association as to the subjects of performance, accountability, and contract renewal. The Knox County Education Association appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in finding that provisions of the private act were repealed by the Education Improvement Act and (2) the trial court erred in concluding that school principals are not members of the bargaining unit as to the subjects of performance, accountability, and contract renewal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond Mueller v. Denise Mueller
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Karmen Lane v. Richard Lane
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State v. Stephen Bart Wood
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kiersten Cierra Burchette
|
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Harris v. Thomas Hall
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District v. Health Facilities Commission
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co., Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Davidson vs. Charles Lindsey
|
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Marlena Tilley vs. Gurpal Bindra
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Salsman vs. Texcor Indus.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ragan/James Hinson vs. Kelli Gatton
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Tim Walton v. Sharon (Walton) Camp
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
CH-00-1455-1
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Troy Allen Thompson v. Elisa Connell Hulbert
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals |