Debbie Risner vs. Nathan Harris W2001-01041-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This is an action to recover personal property. The plaintiff and defendant lived together for seventeen years. In November 1999, the plaintiff moved out. She left personal property in the trailer in which the couple was living, in the nearby convenience store owned by the defendant, and in a storage unit in another town. In August 2000, the convenience store caught on fire, and the plaintiff's personal property in the store was destroyed. Soon thereafter, the defendant took possession of the plaintiff's other personal property that had been held in the storage unit and called her to come get it. In November 2000, the plaintiff filed a warrant in general sessions court to recover her personal property from the defendant. She claimed that the defendant had prevented her from retrieving any of her personal property. She received a judgment which was appealed to circuit court. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarded damages, and ordered the defendant to return certain items to the plaintiff. The defendant now appeals. We reverse the trial court's decision with respect to two of the items ordered returned and the property that the plaintiff had kept in the storage unit in another town, and affirm the remainder of the order.
This case involves a medical malpractice claim that was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The plaintiff, Steffone McClendon, appealed to this Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment. We affirmed the trial court’s decision based on the legislative history and our interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee code. The plaintiff sought a review of this Court’s decision with the Tennessee Supreme Court. Although the supreme court refused to hear the case, it remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., 50 S.W. 3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) released this year by the middle section of this Court and recently published.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Town of Greeneville vs. Jack Cobble, et ux E2001-00869-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
Trial Court refused to grant partial summary judgment as to the extent of land taken. On appeal, we reverse.
Greene
Court of Appeals
E2001-01363-COA-R3-JV E2001-01363-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Tom Wright
Greene
Court of Appeals
Monroe Davis vs. State E2001-02032-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
The plaintiff, Monroe E. Davis is a prisoner in state custody. He filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission ("the Claims Commission") against the State of Tennessee and the warden of the facility at which he is incarcerated, seeking damages for the alleged detention and/or conversion of his personal property by the warden. The Claims Commission granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Court of Appeals
Johnson vs. CCA W2001-00595-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court granting a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Hardeman
Court of Appeals
Chantal Eldridge v. Putnam County M2000-02963-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This is a case about the Open Records Act as applied to the telephone records of a Drug Task Force. After the Chancery Court of Putnam County ordered the County to produce the records, the County appealed, arguing that the records fit an exception to the Act or that the County should be able at the plaintiff's expense to redact the records to delete confidential information. We modify the chancellor's order to allow the County to redact the records at their own expense.
Putnam
Court of Appeals
Christell Staggs v. William Sells, et al. M2000-03095-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This case involves a claim of negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a home. The trial court found that Defendants' statements and actions constituted negligent misrepresentation of the condition of the property resulting in $25,000.00 in damages to Plaintiff. However, the trial court also found, applying principles of comparative fault, that Defendants were 60% at fault and Plaintiff was 40% at fault. A judgment of $15,000 was, thus, assessed against Defendants. Defendants appeal the court's finding of negligent misrepresentations, as well as the amount of damages determined by the court to be suffered by Plaintiff. We affirm.
Putnam
Court of Appeals
Christell Staggs v. William Sells, et al. M2000-03095-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This case involves a claim of negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a home. The trial court found that Defendants' statements and actions constituted negligent misrepresentation of the condition of the property resulting in $25,000.00 in damages to Plaintiff. However, the trial court also found, applying principles of comparative fault, that Defendants were 60% at fault and Plaintiff was 40% at fault. A judgment of $15,000 was, thus, assessed against Defendants. Defendants appeal the court's finding of negligent misrepresentations, as well as the amount of damages determined by the court to be suffered by Plaintiff. We affirm.
This is an appeal by defendant, Michael Kingston Stevenson (Husband), from the trial court's award of alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, the amount of child support award, and the award of additional alimony in solido of $9,700.00 for plaintiff, Shelly Sue Douglas Stevenson's (Wife), attorney's fee.
The plaintiff counter-defendant, ShoLodge Franchise Systems, Inc. (hereafter "Sholodge") has appealed from a jury verdict of $327,272 in favor of the defendant counterplaintiff McKibbon Brothers, Inc. (hereafter McKibbon) for damages for breach of a franchise contract.
This is an appeal by petitioner, Johnny W. Raines, from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for certiorari from a decision of the Tennessee Board of Paroles (Board).
This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Richard and Kimberly King, from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to defendants/appellees, W. D. Schock, Co. ("Schock"), South Central Bell Telephone Co. a/k/a Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. ("Bell South"), and Charles LaRue.
This appeal involves a dispute between Warren County, Tennessee and the Town of Morrison, a municipality located within Warren County, regarding the disposition of the revenue generated by the county local option sales tax. On March 21, 1988, plaintiff, Town of Morrison (hereinafter Morrison), filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against defendant, Warren County. The complaint alleges that under T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (Supp. 1995), a justiciable controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights to distribution of the county local option sales tax revenue. The complaint avers that the Warren County local option sales tax was adopted in 1969 and increased in 1976 and 1985. Morrison alleges that since 1969 the tax revenues have been collected by the Tennessee Department of Revenue and distributed to Warren County, but Warren County has refused to pay Morrison its share of the taxes as required by T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (2)(B). The complaint seeks a declaration of the rights of the parties to the sales tax revenues, and an accounting of, and a judgment for, Morrison's share of the local option sales tax.
In this case, we are presented with the issue of whether a private act is invalid as being in conflict with the general law addressing the same subject.Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company, v. Joe H
This is an appeal by defendant/appellant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro"), from the judgment of the trial court against it in favor of plaintiffs/ appellees, Richard and Barbara Arnold, and crossdefendant/ appellee, Gloria Ford.
Glen Alcorn, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, petitioned the Chancery Court of Davidson County for an order that he be furnished with copies of certain documents that he believed would be helpful in the appeal of his conviction. Mr. Alcorn asked the chancery court to compel the State of Tennessee to provide him with the transcript of jury voir dire in his trial, and to compel the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department to provide him with a copy of the investigative file in his case. The court dismissed Mr. Alcorn's petition on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the dismissal.
This is a negligence case in which the Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's finding that Defendants did not breach their duty of care.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Wills Electric Co., Inc. v. Hassan Mirsaidi M2000-02477-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
A general contractor withheld the final payment for work completed by his electrical subcontractor, and the subcontractor sued for breach of contract. The trial court awarded the subcontractor the contracted-for amount, as well as pre-judgment interest and consequential damages. We reverse the award of consequential damages. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Milliken Group, Inc. v. Hays Nissan, Inc. M2001-00506-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This dispute arises from a contract for capital improvements entered into between the plaintiff and the agent of the defendant. The primary issues on appeal are whether the agent had the authority to bind the defendant to the contract, and whether the trial court erred in limiting the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff. We affirm in part and modify the judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Linda Frye vs. Ronnie Frye In Re: Judgment of Herbert Moncier E2001-00732-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This suit was filed in July of 1999 to enforce two judgments in favor of attorney Herbert S. Moncier ("Plaintiff") against Ronnie Charles Frye ("Defendant"). The Trial Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $32,242.29. In the first appeal to this Court, we concluded the action was not filed timely, vacated the judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and dismissed the lawsuit. No appeal was taken from that decision. The present appeal involves the Trial Court's holding of Defendant in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying post-judgment orders of the Trial Court to respond to discovery and appear for deposition. These orders were entered and the alleged contemptuous conduct occurred before the underlying judgment was reversed by this Court. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
In Re: K.A.Y.and A.M.Y. E2001-00398-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Wayne and Mary Stuart ("Stuarts"), as foster parents, had physical custody of a set of twins ("Children") for approximately a year and a half when the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") removed the Children from the Stuarts' home and placed them with Paul and Susan Young ("Youngs"). The Stuarts later filed a petition in Knox County Juvenile Court seeking custody of the Children. While the custody matter was pending, the Youngs filed an adoption petition in the Trial Court which was granted. The Stuarts filed a motion to intervene and to set aside the adoption decree. The Trial Court granted this motion. The Youngs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and cited three grounds in support of their motion: (1) the requirement that adoptive parents have custody of the child; (2) DCS's consent to the adoption; and (3) the statutory foster parent preference for adoption. Without deciding the Stuarts' petition for custody, the Trial Court granted summary judgment as a matter of law to the Youngs. The Stuarts appeal. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Tom Lockett vs. Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc. E2001-01000-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
In this appeal from the Knox County Circuit Court the Defendants/Appellants, Charles Blalock & Sons, Inc., and Austin Powder Company, contest the Trial Court's award of prejudgment interest to the Plaintiffs/Appellees, Tom Lockett and his wife, Betty Lockett. In addition, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants appeal the Trial Court's denial of their requests for discretionary costs. We affirm the order of the Trial Court as to both its award of prejudgment interest to the Plaintiffs and its denial of discretionary costs to the Defendants. However, we vacate the Trial Court's order as to its denial of the Plaintiffs' request for discretionary costs and remand for consideration in accord with this opinion.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Jan Burns vs. James Burns E2001-01039-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
In this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court's awards of alimony pendente lite and alimony in futuro to the wife. The record before us does not demonstrate that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Michael Sutton vs. Larry Barnes E2001-01911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The plaintiffs, Cocke County homeowners, brought this action seeking compensation for damage caused to their home by blasting activity on their neighbors' property. In response to interrogatories, the company that did the blasting identified the Cocke County Highway Commission as the provider of the explosives. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming Cocke County and the Cocke County Highway Commission (collectively "the County") as additional party defendants. Upon the County's motion, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint as to the County, holding that their action is time-barred. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the discovery rule applies to their action against the County, and, therefore, their claim is not time-barred. The County argues that even if the plaintiffs' action is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We hold that the discovery rule applies to actions against governmental entities and that there is a genuine issue for trial as to when the plaintiffs' cause of action "ar[ose]." We further hold that the complaint adequately states a cause of action, but only as to the plaintiffs' claim of common-law negligence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
