Coldwell Banker-Hoffman Burke and Donna Sliney, et al., v. Kra Holdings, et al.
Plaintiff, a licensed affiliate real estate broker, sued to collect a commission for locating a particular property for a prospective buyer. When the sellers refused to sell the property, the prospective buyer abandoned efforts to obtain the property. About six weeks later, the prospective buyer contacted one of the sellers and was able to negotiate with all of the sellers for purchase of the property and ultimately consummated the purchase for a higher sale price than originally contemplated. Plaintiff alleges that she had an oral agreement for $150,000.00 commission, or, alternatively, that she was acting as a facilitator and entitled to a commission for her services as such. From the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant, plaintiff has appealed. Tenn.R.App.P. 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court affirmed |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Pitner v. Fayette County, Tennessee
This appeal results from the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff John Pitner’s cause of action against Defendant Fayette County, Tennessee (“County”) pursuant to Rule 41.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court ruled that Mr. Pitner, the former Director of Planning and Development for the County, failed to prove that the County was contractually obligated to pay overtime to him and that Mr. Pitner further failed to prove damages. We affirm on the basis that Mr. Pitner failed to prove the existence of a contract. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
James Reed, et al., v. Jamie Hamilton, et ux.
This appeal arises from a dispute between neighboring landowners regarding whether there is an easement across the real property of Defendants Jamie and Bonnie Hamilton for the benefit of Plaintiffs Hulon O. Warlick, III, James Reed, and Wayne Matthews. Mr. Warlick filed a complaint and Mr. Reed and Mr. Matthews filed a similar complaint against the Hamiltons asking the trial court to declare the existence of such an easement. The court issued a number of orders in the Warlick and Reed/Matthews matters enjoining the Hamiltons from interfering with the easement and from obstructing or preventing Mr. Warlick, Mr. Reed, or Mr. Matthews from accessing their properties. The Hamiltons nevertheless performed a number of acts in violation of these orders. Consequently, the trial court found the Hamiltons in civil contempt and assessed sanctions and damages against them in the amount of $25,156.80, which is equal to the attorney’s fees incurred by Mr. Warlick, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Matthews. On appeal, the Hamiltons argue that the trial court was without authority to assess attorney’s fees against them. We hold that, under the circumstances of the case at bar, the trial court had the authority to assess attorney’s fees against the Hamiltons pursuant to section 29-9-105 of the Tennessee Code Annotated. We therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Sean N. Geiger v. Percy Pitzer, et al.
An inmate presently in custody in the Whiteville Correctional Facility sued the warden and the CEO and Chairman of Corrections Corporation of America in a pleading styled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. He seeks release from that facility contending that the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) released him when it surrendered him to a facility outside the borders of the State of Wisconsin for incarceration. The trial court dismissed the cause of action and we affirm. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Washshukru Al-Jabbar A'La. v. Christine Bradley, et al.
Plaintiff, an inmate in Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary, appeals the Trial Court’s dismissal of his civil suit for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the “capricious, arbitrary and unjust” operation of the Inmate Grievance Procedure, for “malfeasance”, and for “civil rights intimidation.” The Trial Court found that (1) the doctrine of res judicata prevents Plaintiff’s suit on one of his alleged claims because judgment has been entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on that claim; (2) all of Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory except for that one claim already resolved, and, therefore, do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) with respect to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in the Tennessee Department of Correction grievance policy, and, therefore, that allegation fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Statement of Issues in this appeal alleges abuse of discretion by the Trial Court “by dismissing his civil rights claims” and cites Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-701, 4-21-702 and 4-21-801. Construing Plaintiff’s pro se appeal liberally, we deem it as challenging all three bases upon which the Trial Court dismissed his Complaint. For the reasons herein stated, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Christine Berkley, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, etc. v. H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the Trial Judge’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Claude Willis v. Lola Mae Willis
This appeal arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Claude Willis and Defendant Lola Mae (Wright) Willis regarding the terms of their divorce. The trial court granted an absolute divorce to Ms. Wright,1 divided the parties’ marital property, allocated the parties’ marital debt, and awarded Ms. Wright alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, Mr. Willis argues that the trial court’s division of marital property and allocation of marital debt are inequitable, and that, assuming an award of alimony is appropriate in the case at bar, the court should have awarded Ms. Wright rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro. Additionally, Ms. Wright requests on appeal that her award of attorney’s fees be designated as alimony. We affirm the ruling of the trial court; however, we modify the court’s ruling to reflect that attorney’s fees are awarded to Ms. Wright as alimony. |
Benton | Court of Appeals | |
Walter A. Farris, et al., v. William S. Todd, et al.
This appeal involves the question of whether the Appellants, Walter and Gordon Farris, complied with the statute of limitations when filing their complaint for legal malpractice and conversion. The Appellees, William S. Todd and Thomas S. Dossett, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Appellants moved to amend their complaint to include declaratory judgment relief for determination of the ownership rights of the parties in a particular art work. The Circuit Court for Sullivan County granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the motion to amend. We affirm in part and vacate in part the Circuit Court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Venessa Lynn Totty v. Michael Alan Totty
This appeal involves a dispute regarding a final decree of divorce entered in the Shelby County |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Beaman Pontiac vs. Gill
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Trebing vs. Fleming Companies
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Trebing vs. Fleming Companies
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jabari Mandela vs. Jim Rose, et al
|
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Rocky Lee Coker vs. TN Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Clifford Taylor vs. State, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lewis vs. Caputo
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Mundy vs. James Mundy
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Penny Sue Mincy v. Charles David Mincy, Sr.
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Groner vs. On-Site Grading
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Dyer vs. Bd. of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rickey Moorman v. Dept of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
David J. Williams v. Tennessee Department of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Utley v. Department of Corrections
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Henderson vs. Dept. of Safety
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald McKinney vs. State, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |