Douglas Shanklin vs. UT Medical W1999-01982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This appeal arises from a trial court's finding that a subsequent action by Doctor was barred under the doctrine of res judicata due to the court's decision in an earlier case. On appeal, Doctor argued that his earlier action for age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act was not the same as the current action, which involves breach of contract and unjust enrichment. We affirm the trial court's ruling.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Arthur/Mary Anderson vs. John Howser W2000-00937-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
This is a medical malpractice case. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from the defendant physician. The plaintiffs filed the opposing affidavit of an expert physician. When the defendants attempted to depose the plaintiffs' expert, they were informed that he would not be testifying at trial. However, the plaintiffs' expert's affidavit was never withdrawn from the record, nor was his testimony recanted. The trial court gave the plaintiffs additional time to secure an expert for trial. The plaintiffs failed to secure an expert within the time period and filed a notice of voluntary non-suit. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' response to the motion for summary judgment must be supported by the affidavit of an expert who is expected to testify at trial. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. Where the plaintiff submits the affidavit of an expert in response to a motion for summary judgment, and it is undisputed that the expert will not testify for trial, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim warranting a trial, and the granting of summary judgment is appropriate.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Nancy Record vs. Brian Record W2000-01294-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
Husband appeals a final decree of divorce as it pertains to an upward deviation of child support, division of marital property and debt, and the award of alimony in solido for attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Allied Business vs. Abraham Musa W1999-00378-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
This appeal involves a breach of contract regarding a commission owed for the sale of a business. Allied, the broker, claims that Abed Amro owes it a commission based on the contract between the parties. Amro, however, claims that he is not liable under the Listing Agreement even though it is undisputed that he signed the contract. The trial court held that Allied was not entitled to a judgment against Amro because Amro did not have an ownership interest in the business that was sold. We reverse.
This is an appeal from the trial court's modification of an order of visitation increasing the appellee's amount of summer visitation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cheatham
Court of Appeals
S.E.A., Inc. vs. Southside Leasing Company and Moss W. Yater E2000-00631-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
S.E.A., Inc. brought suit in Knox County Chancery Court seeking an injunction and alternatively, damages, against its lessor, Southside Leasing Company, and Southside's secured creditor, Moss W. Yater, regarding a non-disturbance agreement. Yater is also Southside's majority shareholder, president and director. S.E.A.sought to sublease a portion of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the lease between S.E.A. and Southside, Southside consented to the sublease and executed the requested non-disturbance agreement. However, Yater, Southside's secured creditor, refused to execute the non-disturbance agreement unless Southside received a portion of the rent from the sublease. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment which were granted by the Trial Court. S.E.A. appeals the Trial Court's granting of summary judgment to the Defendants. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Barry Robinson v. Donald Brooks M2003-00185-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves the sale by auction of certain real property in Davidson County. The buyers brought suit in Davidson County Chancery Court seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, damages for breach of contract. From the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff buyers appeal. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Dudley vs. Dudley M1998-00982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded the divorce to the Wife and divided the property. Husband appeals the award of the marital residence and its contents to Wife. We affirm.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Turner vs. Turner M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Turner vs. Turner M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Lassiter vs. Lassiter M1999-00374-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This case involves a divorce ending a seven-year marriage. The divorce was awarded to the wife on grounds of the husband's inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court divided the property and debts according to the parties' stipulations. The court then awarded the wife alimony in futuro and ordered the husband to pay $750 of the wife's attorney fees. The husband appeals the awards of alimony and attorney fees. We affirm.
Robertson
Court of Appeals
State Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. L.S., In the Matter of D.S. M1999-00847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
The Trial Court removed minor child from the parental home on grounds child was dependent and neglected. We affirm.
Pickett
Court of Appeals
Franklin Nat'l Bank vs. Prowell M2000-00580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
The Circuit Court of Williamson County refused to issue a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the General Sessions Court of that county because the petition was untimely and the same issues were already pending in an action in Maury County. We affirm.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Moss vs. TN Board of Paroles M2000-00128-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
At the hearing where appellant's parole was revoked, the Hearing Officer admitted sworn statements of alleged victims. The Trial Court upheld the revocation. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Joiner vs. Metro Gov't M2000-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
The Trial Court entered consent Judgment over objection of defendant. We vacate Judgment and remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Wilson vs. So. Centr. Corr. Facility Disciplinary Bd M2000-00303-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
An inmate in a privately operated prison filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari against the disciplinary board at that facility. The trial court dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm
Tammy Elizabeth Hickman & Danny Ray Hickman vs. Eugenia Darlene Hickman E2000-00927-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Plaintiffs sued to terminate the mother's parental rights. The Trial Judge held plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proof. We affirm.
Rhea
Court of Appeals
Walter E. Everette, et al vs. Hubert G. Berry, et al E2000-00461-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this dispute over real estate, the Plaintiffs seek to have a quit claim deed conveying certain property to the Defendants declared spurious, as well as injunctive relief relative to rights-of-way adjacent to their property. The Chancellor granted the relief the Plaintiffs sought, resulting in this appeal. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Jimmy B. Hillard, et al vs. Buddie Ruth Franklin E2000-00402-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
This is a suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain real property for $80,000. Before the purchase was closed, a house on the property was destroyed by fire, and the defendant collected $35,000 as proceeds from her homeowners' insurance policy. The purchase of the property did not proceed to closing and the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of the contract at a purchase price of $45,000 -- this amount being the difference between the original purchase price and the insurance proceeds collected by the defendant. The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment. The defendant appeals, contending that this case is not ripe for summary judgment. We affirm.
Jefferson
Court of Appeals
Steamfitters vs. Phillip Morris W1999-01061-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
Union health and welfare funds brought an action against tobacco companies and their trade associations to recover the funds' costs of treating their participants' smoking-related illnesses. The tobacco companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the funds' economic injuries were derivative of the participants' physical injuries and, consequently, too remote for recovery. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the funds' antitrust claim but denied the motion on the funds' claims for fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Permission for interlocutory appeal was granted to the tobacco companies by both the trial court and the appellate court. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the antitrust claim and reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss on the remaining claims, finding the plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too remote, as a matter of law, to permit recovery. The cause is remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Christopher J. Moore vs. Robert S. Johnson, et al E2000-00385-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant and an unidentified driver were equally at fault in causing the accident. The defendant appeals, raising issues that require us to determine whether there is material evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. We conclude that there is material evidence to support the verdict and thus affirm the judgment.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Jackie McGregor vs. Gregor Scott McGregor E1999-00877-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted the parties a divorce on stipulated grounds; (2) divided the marital property; and (3) found that wife was not entitled to an award of alimony, but that funds withdrawn by her from a joint account immediately prior to her filing for divorce constituted necessary temporary support for her and the parties' daughter. Wife appeals the trial court's characterization of certain real property as marital property and the trial court's division of the marital property. Both wife and husband take issue with the trial court's treatment of the funds withdrawn by wife from the joint account. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Rhea E. Burns, Jr. vs. New York Life Ins. Co. & Robert H. Noe E2000-00158-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
Plaintiff, an insurance sales agent for New York Life Insurance Company, alleged that he entered into an oral agreement with another New York Life Insurance agent for the two agents to sell life insurance policies to a particular family and share the sales commissions. Some time later, a dispute arose between Plaintiff and the second New York Life Insurance agent over who was entitled to receive certain sales commissions. After Plaintiff did not receive a share of those sales commissions, he sought the assistance of New York Life in resolving his dispute with the second agent. New York Life accepted statements from both agents and then declined to intervene on Plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff brought suit against the second agent and New York Life, but later non-suited the claim against the agent. Plaintiff alleged that New York Life was contractually required to make a decision in a commission dispute between its agents, and that if it had made a decision, the industry standard practice would have required the company to decide in his favor. He sought damages from New York Life for breach of contract and under a quantum meruit theory. The Trial Court granted New York Life's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
