Leta Hoalcraft vs. Walter Troy Smithson
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frances Luna, et al vs. Michael Breeding, et al
|
White | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas O'Connell v. YMCA of Middle Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Yolannda Solomon vs. Brad Hager, et al
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
E2001-00069-COA-R3-CV
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ruth Wilson v. Landon Snapp, Jr.
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State, Ex Rel, Pernie Barger, et al vs. City of Huntsville , State ex rel, George Brawner, Sr., et al vs. City of Huntsville
|
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Bates vs. Dr. Joseph Metcalf
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Bates vs. Dr. Joseph Metcalf
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Bates vs. Dr. Joseph Metcalf
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Williams vs. Cora Williams
|
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Shelton vs. Tidwell
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James Jones vs. Pierce Garrett, a/k/a Perry Garrett
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank/First Citizens Bank, v. Citizens and Associates, Allied Mortgage Capital Corp., Frieda Gray, and Henry Gray, A/K/A James Gray, First Tennessee Bank
Drawer of checks and Bank failed to exercise ordinary care in transactions under Tenn. Code Ann. §47-3-406. Drawer was assessed 80% of fault and Bank 20%. Drawer appeals. We affirm, as modified. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank/First Citizens Bank v. Citizens and Associates, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in so much of the majority opinion as holds that Citizens is precluded from raising an issue on appeal as to the dismissal of First Tennessee Bank. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the facts do not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Citizens was 80% at fault for the loss occasioned by Frieda Gray’s forgery. In my judgment, Citizens did not engage in negligent conduct that substantially contributed to the forgery, as that concept is embodied in T.C.A. § 47-3-406. Accordingly, I would hold that the Bank, who was clearly negligent in allowing checks made payable to a business to be deposited directly into an individual’s bank account, was 100% at fault for the loss. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Billy and Mary Milliken v. Crye-Leike Realtors, et al
The buyers of a new residence filed this action against the builder and their realtor after discovering that the house was defective. The claims against the realtor alleged negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act based in part on the agent's representation that the builder was licensed. The jury, using a jury verdict form, found that the realtor had committed a deceptive act or practice prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act, but determined that the buyers had suffered no loss therefrom. The jury also found the realtor liable for negligent misrepresentation, calculated the damages resulting from the realtor's negligent misrepresentation, and apportioned fault at 10% to the buyers, 10% to the realtor, and 80% to the builder, a nonparty. On appeal, the buyers argue that the verdict was inconsistent and challenge the assessment of costs and the failure to award attorney fees. We affirm the verdict, the denial of attorney's fees, and the apportionment of court costs. We vacate the denial of discretionary costs and remand for determination of that issue. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Niedergeses, et al v. Giles County, Tennessee
This case presents a tragic set of facts involving an automobile accident which occurred in Giles County on May 8 or 9, 1997, sometime between 11:15 p.m. and 12:15 a.m. Michael Niedergeses died as a result of this accident. His parents, Larry Niedergeses and Roberta Niedergeses, instigated this suit against Giles County alleging that the county's negligence in failing to maintain the bridge signage caused their son's accident and resulting death. The case was tried non-jury in the Circuit Court of Giles County. That court found Mr. Niedergeses fifty percent at fault and Giles County fifty percent at fault. Plaintiffs appeal this ruling asserting that the trial judge was in error and should have found Giles County more than fifty percent at fault. The appeal presents for review the question of "whether the evidence preponderated against the trial court's finding that John Michael Niedergeses was fifty percent at fault in the May 9, 1997 accident." We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the judge's findings and affirm the trial court's ruling. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
William P. Livingston v. State of Tennessee, Board of Paroles
Petitioner appeals the trial court's decision to deny his petition for common law writ of certiorari challenging a Board of Paroles decision to revoke his parole and the court's grant of Respondent's motion for summary judgment. Petitioner appeals the order on two grounds, (1) his due process rights were violated by the introduction of inadmissible evidence, and (2) these procedural flaws led to the hearing officer becoming biased and unable to conduct a fair and impartial hearing. For the reasons below, we find both claims without merit and affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Robbins, v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee
This case involves the termination of Johnson City police officer, Larry Robbins. Dissatisfied with his department's handling of certain allegations of sexual harassment made by a secretary against officer Mike Lukianoff, Robbins authored an anonymous letter and sent it to each of the City Commissioners. The Chief of Police, who later learned of the letter, conducted an investigation. Robbins eventually admitted to writing the letter, to relating the allegations even though he had no personal knowledge of them, and to having a personal vendetta against the alleged harasser. The City terminated Robbins, primarily for conduct unbecoming an officer. Robbins appealed to the City Civil Service Commission, which upheld Robbins' termination. Robbins then appealed to the Washington County Chancery Court, which reversed the termination, but remanded for appropriate discipline. The City appeals the reversal of Robbins' termination, and Robbins appeals the remand for discipline. We find that the trial court erred in reversing the termination. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of J.R.W.
|
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Jerome Beasley, et al vs. Lloyd Amburgy
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re: Adoption of A.K.S.R. and A.T.S.R.
|
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Murray vs. Dewey Lineberry
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
John T. Bell, et al vs. Richard Gene Nolan, et al
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Don Stone vs. Donald Brickey, et al
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals |