COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Dispositive Order?

Sort by

Order

Cunningham vs. Dept. of Saftey 01A01-9509-CH-00411 Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	05/21/97
Hepp vs. Joe B's & Schultz 01A01-9604-CV-00183 Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton	Montgomery	Court of Appeals	05/21/97
Stroud vs. Stroud 01A01-9607-CH-00291 Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton	Giles	Court of Appeals	05/21/97
Patterson vs. Amos, et. ux. 01A01-9609-CH-00410	Perry	Court of Appeals	05/21/97
Deborah Tuggle vs. Shelby Co. Government, et al 02A01-9606-CV-00147 Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/20/97
Tommye Johnson vs. Edward Johnson, Sr. 02A01-9609-Cv-00217 Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/20/97
Marilyn Morgan vs. Velma McCrory 02A01-9604-CV-00072 Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/20/97
Kenneth & Bertie Downing vs. City of Memphis 02A01-9608-CV-00177 Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/16/97
Nancy Olivieri vs. Paul Oliveri 02A01-9512-CV-00282		Court of Appeals	05/16/97
Vowell Ventures vs. The City of Martin 02A01-9604-CH-00090 Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree	Weakley	Court of Appeals	05/16/97
Brandy Thatcher, b/n/f vs. Bobby Wyatt, et al 02A01-9605-CH-00114 Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis	Haywood	Court of Appeals	05/15/97
Georgia Keys vs. Memphis Carwash, Inc. 02A01-9605-CV-00113 Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/15/97
Portland Utilities Construction v. Chase Creek M2002-02886-COA-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. A utilities contractor sued a subdivision developer for payment for work it performed on the subdivision's infrastructure. The court found that the developer was obligated to honor its contract by paying for work with a value of $313,829. The court also found that the developer was entitled to an offset of $55,955 for damages resulting from defects in the contractor's performance. The developer argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously declined to grant it additional offsets. We affirm the trial court.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	05/14/97
Gentry vs. Gentry 01A01-9611-CH-00512 Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell	Montgomery	Court of Appeals	05/14/97
Burgess & Carter vs. Mead Johnson 01A01-9609-CV-00436 Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins	Coffee	Court of Appeals	05/14/97
Estate of Edward P. Russell, Deceased 01A01-9611-PB-00516 Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull Tracy Moore, B/N/F/ Shirley Moore vs. James Prescott, II 02A01-9609-CV-00227 View		Court of Appeals	05/14/97
Nance vs. Nance 01A01-9611-CV-00515 Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson	Davidson	Court of Appeals	05/14/97
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Bunch vs. Bunch 03A01-9609-GS-00301		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Savco vs. Century 03A01-9611-CV-00360		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Crum vs. Lawing 03A01-9610-CH-00320	Greene	Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Bell vs. Carter 03A01-9610-CH-00334		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Gozenbach vs. Gozenbach 03A01-9609-CV-00314		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
Upper East Tenn. vs. Johnson 03A01-9701-CH-00011		Court of Appeals	05/13/97
George Avery Land and Stella Faye Land v. Buster Crum and Patricia L. Crum - Concurring 01-A-01-9611-CH-00524 Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jeffrey F. Stewart The defendants, Buster Crum and wife Patricia L. Crum, have appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court resolving a boundary dispute favorably to the plaintiffs, George Avery Land and wife, Stella Faye Land. The sole issue presented to this Court by the defendants/appellants is: Whether the Chancellor erred by ruling that the common boundary line between the parties’ properties should be surveyed in the course and distance method when there were ample natural objects, landmarks, artificial monuments and lines of adjoining landowners sufficiently describing the common boundary line.	Sequatchie	Court of Appeals	05/09/97