Leroy Smith v. Ronald Gourley
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Department of Human Serv.: In the Matter of Kubra Satterfield
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Michael Phillips vs. Morrill Electric, Inc.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Willie Jean Cherry Johnson, v. James Franklin Johnson
Plaintiff Willie Jean Cherry Johnson (Wife) appeals the trial court's judgment denying her petition to modify a final divorce decree previously entered by the court in December 1996. We affirm the trial court's judgment based upon our conclusion that the disposition of this case is controlled by this court's decision in Gilliland v. Stanley, No 0WL180587 (Tenn . App . Apr .16 , 1997) ( no perm. app. filed ) . |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9903-CH-00185
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9904-CH-00209
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9812-CH-00652
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Mickey A. Brown v. Tennessee Department of Correction
A Tennessee prison inmate filed a Petition for a Declaratory Judgment, insisting that he was entitled to be immediately released because of the earlier expiration of a concurrent Florida sentence. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alfred Lee Mauldin v. Mark Luttrell, Warden, et al.
Alfred Lee Mauldin appeals from the order of the chancery court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jane H. Ralls v. William M. Coats
In this action alleging breach of contract, the Trial Judge granted the plaintiff summary judgment for damages for breach of contract in the amount of $12,180.24. Defendant has appealed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wilson County Youth Emergency Shelter, Inc. v. Wilson County and Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals
The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals (“the BZA”) denied the petition of Wilson County Youth Emergency Shelter, Inc. (“the Shelter”) for a use on review to construct a group home on 5.46 acres of property in Wilson County. The Shelter proposes to move its existing facility in the county to the new location. On petition for certiorari, the trial court affirmed the action of the BZA. The Shelter appeals, arguing that the BZA’s decision was illegal, arbitrary, and beyond its jurisdiction. By way of a separate issue, the Shelter argues that there is no material evidence to support the BZA’s denial of its petition. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Sanders and Patricia Sanders, v. Lincoln County and Steve Graham, Chmn of Lincoln County Commission
Plaintiffs Kevin and Patricia Sanders appeal the trial court’s judgment which dismissed their complaint against Defendants/Appellees Lincoln County and Steve Graham, Chairman of the Lincoln County Commission, based upon the court’s rulings that the complaint failed to state an equal protection claim against the Defendants and, alternatively, that the Sanders’ equal protection claim was barred by principles of res judicata.1 We conclude that both of these rulings were in error and, thus, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Willamette Industries, Inc., v. Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission, Wayne County Assessor of Property, and Wayne County Trustee
The petition in this case seeks judicial review of real property valuations established by a final order of the Tennessee Assessment Appeals Commission (“AAC”), a body created by the State Board of Equalization to hear “appeals regarding the assessment, classification and value of property for purposes of taxation.” T.C.A.§ 67-5-1502(a). The AAC’s order in the instant case fixed, for ad valorem tax purposes, the separate values of 15 parcels of Wayne County woodland owned by the petitioner, Willamette Industries, Inc. (“Willamette”). Upon review of the AAC’s order, the trial court held, among other things, that the appraisal methodology utilized by the AAC was not per se contrary to Tennessee law, and that the record contained substantial and material evidence to support the AAC’s valuations based upon that methodology. Accordingly, it affirmed the AAC’s order. Willamette appeals, raising the following issues for our consideration: |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
United Agricultural Services, Inc. v. John W. Scherer, Jr.
This appeal involves jurisdiction under the long-arm statute. Defendant/appellant, John W. Scherer, Jr. (Scherer), appeals the order of the trial court awarding plaintiff/appellee, United Agricultural Services, Inc. (Ag Services), damages for breach of contract. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
D&E Construction, Inc., v. Robert Denley Company, Inc.
This is an action to enforce an arbitration award. Plaintiff/appellant, D & E Construction Company (D&E), appeals the order of the Chancery Court vacating an arbitration award rendered against defendant/appellee, Robert J. Denley Company (Denley). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tim Taylor v. Robert L. Morris and Terry Muncey - Concurring
Defendant Terry Muncey appeals, and Plaintiff Tim Taylor cross-appeals, the trial court’s judgment awarding Muncey $1000 in damages on his counterclaim for wrongful injunction against Taylor. We reverse the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that Muncey failed to meet his burden of proving the elements of his claim for wrongful injunction. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Michael King v. TFE, Inc.
In this action filed against TFE, Inc. (hereafter “TFE”), Michael King appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to TFE as related to King’s claims for breach of an alleged employment contract. The trial court granted TFE’s motion for summary judgment based on the court’s conclusion that an employee handbook distributed by TFE did not constitute an employment contract. For the reasons hereafter stated, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Southwest Progressive Ent., Inc. v. Shri-Hari Hospitality, LLC and Trans Financial Bank of Tennessee - Concurring
A construction company sued a hotelkeeper for payment of the balance due on their contract. The trial court ordered the hotelkeeper to pay the balance, as well as pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. We affirm the award of pre-judgment interest, but we reverse the award of attorney fees. We also reverse a $500 offset the trial court granted to the defendant for the plaintiff’s alleged failure to complete a punch list. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Terry David Mackie v. Sarah Catheine Mackie
This case represents an appeal from the grant of divorce upon stipulation of grounds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129. The parties to this action, Terry David Mackie ("Husband"), and Sarah Catherine Campbell Mackie ("Wife") were married on November 6, 1984. Husband filed a complaint in Williamson County Circuit Court on March 6, 1997, seeking divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. On March 20, 1997, Wife answered and counterclaimed. In her answer, Wife admitted the ground of irreconcilable differences and alleged inappropriate marital conduct on the part of the Husband. Over the next 14 months the parties participated in successive proceedings regarding pendente lite custody of their severely ill minor child. The case was originally set for trial on June 3, 1997. Both parties agreed to continue the case; each sought a scheduling order for the sequence of discovery. The parties were ordered to attend mediation on February 23, 1998. On May 18, 1998, Husband moved to change pendente lite custody and to compel discovery. This motion was to be heard on June 3, 1998. At the June 3, hearing, in an admittedly unorthodox proceeding, the parties stipulated under oath that each had grounds for divorce. At this point in the hearing, both parties were sent into an antechamber to provide for the division of the marital estate and custody of the child. These negotiations are documented in handwritten notes, signed by the parties and their counsel, and appearing in the record. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Grei S. Hinsen, v. Mark E. Meadors, Individually and D/B/A MEM Contractors, and Hailey Brown
This is an action by a homeowner against a remodeling contractor and a painter for the failure of the paint inside the house. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the homeowner’s claims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thompson, Jr., v. Department of Codes Administration, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This case involves the refusal of the Metropolitan Department of Codes Administration ("the Department") to issue building permits to the petitioner/appellant landowner. Planning to divide and sell his land, the petitioner made preparations to subdivide this land pursuant to the Department's advice on how to avoid regulation by the Metropolitan Planning Commission ("MPC"). However, due to a new interpretation of existing statutory law, the petitioner's preparations, once completed, were no longer adequate and the Department deemed that the land must undergo review before the MPC as a subdivision. Consequently, the zoning administrator of the Department denied the petitioner the building permits and the petitioner brought suit claiming first that the division of land was not a "subdivision" as that term is defined by statute. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the zoning administrator's application of the newly-interpreted law to him violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process and effected against him the application of a retrospective law. In addition, the appellant claimed that the Department should be equitably estopped from refusing to issue the building permits. The trial court granted the Department's motion for involuntary dismissal of the petitioner's case. We affirm the decision of the trial court on all issues. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Layne, individually and as the surviving spouse of James T. Lane, v. Pioneer Life Insurance Company of Illinois
This is a suit in chancery for declaratory judgment relative to a policy of insurance. The primary question presented is whether or not participation by the insured in a motorbike event known as an "enduro" constitutes "racing" within the meaning of an exclusion in the policy. After the insured died from injuries he received while participatingin an "enduro," the defendant insurance company denied coverage. The lower court found that the particular loss in this case was excluded from coverage. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Cooke Battles and Leslie Cooke Jones v. First Union Bank, Peggy Smith, Beverly G. Pitt, Leigh Ann Howard, and Exchange Insurance Co - Concurring
Two of the beneficiaries of a will sued the witnesses and a notary public because the will was not properly executed. The plaintiffs also sued a bank, the witnesses’ employer, for not training its employees on how to properly witness wills. The Chancery Court of Sumner County granted the defendants summary judgment. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Keith Newcomb and wife Caroline Newcomb, Darden E. Davis and wife, Ann J. Davis, v, William Gonser, and wife Lois Gonser and Christopher Gonser, and wife Lisa Gonser, and Shirley Zeitlin & Company
This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Michael and Caroline Newcomb and Darden and Ann Davis, from the decision of the Davidson County Chancery Court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants/appellees William and Lois Gonser. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James R. Tully, Jr. v. USA Wireless, Inc., PMT Investments, Inc. and Patrick M. Thompson et. al.
The Chancellor granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s fraud claim. Because we believe the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to make out a claim of fraud, and the defendant has been unable to negate those allegations, we find the fraud claim inappropriate for summary judgment, and we reverse. We also find that the plaintiff has not waived his contract claim, and we remand this case to the trial court for the resolution of both claims. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
