Jabari Mandela v. Donal Campbell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William Wyatt v. Board of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Moss vs. Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Realty Assoc., et al, vs. Richter/Dial Builders, Inc., et al
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Lyons vs. Farmers Insurance, et al
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Williams vs. Berube & Assoc., et al
|
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Parkey vs. Parkey
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kanbi vs. Sousa
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bomar vs. TN Dept. of Mental Health
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Scott Wells, v. Betty Sue Wells
Christopher Scott Wells (“Father”) and Betty Sue Wells (“Mother”) divorced in October 1997. By the terms of their Marital Dissolution Agreement (MDA), the parties had joint custody of the two children with Mother as primary custodian. Shortly after the MDA was accepted by the court, Father changed his mind. He sought custody of the children based on Mother’s relationships with men. The trial court found no change in circumstances and left custody with Mother. Because of evidence of the children’s altered behavior during their visit with Father, we find it necessary to remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the best interests of the children, including the comparative fitness of the parents at the time of the hearing on remand. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Charlotte Brown, v. Birman Managed Care, David N. Birman, Sue d. Birman, William F. Barenkamp, II, and Kathy Barenkamp
The divorced mother of a minor child claimed that her former husband and his employer conspired to fraudulently understate the husband’s income, in order to defeat her attempts to have his child support obligation increased to an appropriate amount. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We reverse. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Lynn Patterson Conner, v. Billy Ray Conner
In this divorce action the wife has appealed and raises issues as to the amount of the alimony award and the division of marital property. The husband objects to an aw ard o f alimony in futuro and the Order requiring him to pay $2,047.20for the w ife’s atto rney’s fees. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Wayna Shadwick v. Shirley Young and Betty Thompson and F.H. Showmaker Distributors, Inc.
The essence of this appeal is whether a judgment creditor of an estate should be permitted to intervene in a marital/familial matter. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie A. Lewis, v. John S. Muchmore and Virginia L. Muchmore
Leslie A. Lewis filed a detainer warrant in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County against John S. Muchmore and Virginia Muchmore alleging forcible entry and detainer (FED)1 or unlawful detainer. The court entered judgment for possession only and the Muchmores appealed to circuit court where the Muchmores brought a counter-complaint for specific performance of a real estate contract. Following a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, Leslie A. Lewis, restoring her to possession of the subject premises and dismissing the countercomplaint. This appeal resulted. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Eugene Lamb, James Morris Lofton, et al. v. MegaFlight Inc., a Florida Corp., Ronald Rosenburg, et al., - Concurring
Lamb, Lee, Lofton, and Bailey (“Plaintiffs” or “Phoenix”) brought suit alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement in the Chancery Court of McNairy County, Tennessee. MegaFlight, Rosenberg, and Noel (“MegaFlight”) filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because a forum selection clause in the contract specified that any action must be brought in the courts of Orange County, Florida. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal. Based upon the following, we reverse the lower court’s grant of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
David Chenault, v. Jeff L. Walker, Jo Bursey, Jack L. Moore, Ocean Inn, Inc., and Dimension III Financial Inc.
This case deals with in personam jurisdiction under the Tennessee Long Arm 1 This Court originally denied the application for interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the appellant’s T.R.A.P. 11 application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to this Court for a review on the merits. 2 Also named as a defendant is Jeff L. Walker, but he is not involved in this interlocutory appeal. 2 Statute and comes to this Court as a T.R.A.P. interlocutory appeal.1 Defendants, Jo Bursey (Bursey), Jack L. Moore (Moore), Ocean Inn, Inc. (Ocean Inn), and Dimension III Financial, Inc. (Dimension III)2, appeal the order of the trial court denying their motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David . LeFemine, and David Sanders, v. Phillips & Jordan, Incorporated
This is a suit by Plaintiffs David LeFemine and David Sanders seeking damages for breach of contract against Defendant Phillips & Jordan, Incorporated, which alleges that Defendant Phillips & Jordan failed to provide the Plaintiffs an access road as it had by written contract agreed to do. The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's proof resulting in this appeal which insists the evidence preponderates against the action of the Trial Court. We vacate the Trial Court'sjudgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald W. Smith, v. Roane County Circuit Court Harriman Utility Board, Richard A. Hall and the City Harriman, Tennessee
'This is an appeal by Gerald W. Smith (“Plaintiff”) under T.R.A.P. Rule 3 alleging error in the Trial Court’s granting Summary Judgment to Defendants/Appellees, Harriman Utility Board (“HUB”), HUB General Manager Richard A. Hall (“Hall”), and the City of Harriman, Tennessee (“Harriman”). Plaintiff was an employee of HUB, and after his employment was terminated filed suit for breach of contract, procurement of breach of contract in violation of T.C.A. 2 § 47-50-109, retaliatory discharge, and promissory estoppel. The Circuit Court for Roane County entered summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of The Liquidation for United American Bank of Knoxville, TN Security Pacific Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Appellant leased equipment to United American Bank (“UAB”) for a seven year term. Three years into the lease, UAB was closed by the Tennessee Commissioner of Banking and FDIC FILED February 9, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk 2 was appointed as receiver. Appellant filed a claim with FDIC seeking recovery of the full amount due on the lease. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to FDIC, thus upholding the constitutionality and applicability of T.C.A. § 45-2-1504(b), which provides that lessors can recover a maximum of two months’ lease payments after a Tennessee bank fails and is closed. In this appeal, lessor contends that T.C.A. § 45-2-1504(b) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions by treating lessors differently from other contract claimants and that the application of the statute results in an unconstitutional taking of its property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 21 of the Tennessee Constitution. For the reasons herein stated, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Pallmer Jahn, Jr., v. Sheryl June Jahn
This is a third appeal in this divorce action which was filed more than six years ago between plaintiff (“husband”) and defendant (“wife”). |
Court of Appeals | ||
Joe Parker, et al., v. Board of Commissioners of Roane Co., and TN Board of Commissioners of Roane Co., TN, v. Joe Parker, et al.
This an appeal of a Roane Chancery Court order which enjoined Appellants, Joe Parker, Mary Lynn Parker and Tiger Haven, Inc., from maintaining any Class I, wild or exotic animals, on certain parcels of land in Roane Count, and from expanding theoperation of Tiger Haven, Inc., except upon proper applicatin and approval by the County. While not as exactly stated by the parties, the issues raised on appeal aare whether (1) Appellant's refusal to rezone Appellant' property was arbitrary and capricious, (2) Appellants' use of parcel 22.06 is a pre-existing nonconforming use which may be expanded by Appellants, (3) Appellee's affirmative respresentations to Appellants and its failure to enforce its zoning ordinance for over six years estops it from now enforcing the zoning ordinances, (4) the A-2 zoning regulations are unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad (5) the A-1 zoning regulations and Appellee's actions in not rezoning Parcel 29.01 work an unreasonable discrimination against Appellant's property, and (6) the Trial Court erred in denying Appellant's motion asking that the judgment be altered or amended or a new trial had based on evidence discovered after the trial. For the reasons herein stated, we vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Harley White and William Mack White v. Guy N. Jones and wife, Violet E. Jones
This is a dispute between adjoining property owners over a tract of land which the Chancellor determined was owned by plaintiffs. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, v. Male Pit Bull, Dewayne Rogers, Shanie Rogers , Billie Jean Ritchie Jones
This is an appeal from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s finding of criminal contempt against Dewayne Rogers, Shanie Rogers and Billie Jean Ritchie Jones. Mrs. Jones, Defendant-Appellant, raises the following issue, which we restate: Whether the Appellant was improperly convicted of criminal contempt solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice? |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Branum v. Corrine W. Akins, and Melvin L. Akins
This is a suit wherein the Plaintiff Barbara Brunum, inter alia, seeks to set aside a conveyance by her mother, the Defendant Corrine W. Akins--who held certain real property in trust for her--to her brother, Defendant Melvin L. Akins. The basis of the suit is that her mother violated her fiduciary duty by conveying the property to her brother and that he was guilty of fraud and conspiracy in accepting the transfer. The only consideration for the transfer was the assumption and payment of a prior secured indebtedness against the property in the amount of $29,392.25. The Trial Court found in favor of the daughter against the mother, awarded damages in the amount of $34,607.75, plus pre-judgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, beginning April 28, 1998, the date our opinion in a prior appeal of this case was filed. The Chancellor dismissed the claim as to the brother. The daughter appeals insisting the Trial Court was in error in not setting aside the transfer. We are of the opinion that the Trial Judge acted properly and affirm the judgment entered. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Duffy Tool & Stamping, Inc., v. Bosch Automotive Motor Systems, formerly known as BG Automotive Motors, Inc.
This appeal involves a contract dispute between a manufacturer of automobile parts and one of its suppliers. After the manufacturer complained repeatedly about the quality of its parts, the supplier informed the manufacturer that it would no longer supply the parts even though two years remained on its contract. The manufacturer rejected a portion of the supplier’s last shipment of parts and contracted with another supplier to take over the manufacturing of the parts. The original supplier then filed suit against the manufacturer in the Chancery Court for Sumner County for the balance due on its last shipment, and the manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of the supply contract. The trial court heard the case without a jury and determined that the supplier had breached the supply contract but was also entitled to a set-off based on its last delivery of parts. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the manufacturer a $133,542.66 judgment against the supplier. On this appeal, the supplier takes issue with the judgment on three grounds: that the parties modified their original contract; that the manufacturer waived its breach of contract claim; and that the trial court did not employ the proper measure of damages. We have determined that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the supplier breached the contract but that the trial court incorrectly calculated the damages. Accordingly, we reduce the manufacturer’s judgment against the supplier to $18,953. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
