Billy Childress vs. Natasha Currie
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Kaufman vs. State
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
John Layton vs. Penny Layton
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Roxie Crowell vs. City of Memphis
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy's Carpet Steam Cleaning Co. vs. David McNeely, et al
|
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Goolsby vs. Upper Cumberland Oil, Inc.
|
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
In re: S.B., et al
|
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Roller vs. Roller
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Mario Haywood vs. Dept. of Corrections, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Crowe vs. Crowe
|
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
Horton vs. Parole Eligibility Review Bd.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mirage Casino vs. J. Roger Pearsall
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah Wilkerson vs. Robert Wilkerson
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
City of Brentwood v.Metro Zoning Appeals
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Harold Russom vs. Philip McClore
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mack Brown vs. Dwight W. Ogle, et al
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Crestin Burke, et vs. James Monty Burke, et al
|
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Lamar C. Pell, v. The City of Chattanooga, et al.
Plaintiff’s residential property in Hamilton County was sold for delinquent property taxes after default judgment was entered against Plaintiff, the property owner. Plaintiff brought suit against the subsequent tax sale purchaser, and others, to set aside the default judgment and sale, asserting process had not been served properly on him in the delinquent tax suit. The Trial Court found that certified mail return receipts signed by Plaintiff’s wife were sufficient proof of service under T.R.C.P. 4.04(10) and T.C.A. § 67-5-2415(e)(1), and granted summary judgment to the tax sale purchaser of the property and the other Defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that he was not served properly with process, first arguing that he was not served at all and then arguing that the statutory service procedure relied upon by the Trial Court violates due process. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Phyllis Schwartz v. Lookout Mountain Caverns, Inc., et al.
Following entry of judgment on a jury verdict, the Trial Court granted Defendants a new trial based upon allegations in the affidavit of one of the jurors. Plaintiff was granted interlocutory appeal limited to whether or not the Trial Court erred in granting Defendants’ Motion For New Trial based |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ellen Patty Seiber v. Town of Oliver Springs
The plaintiff, a mid-level executive of the Town of Oliver Springs, “borrowed” various sums of money from a citizen of the Town over a three-year period which she repaid with sexual favors. When this activity came to light she was fired by the Mayor and City Administrator. Her suit, claiming breach of contract and discriminatory employment practices, was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Ellen Patty Seiber v. Town of Oliver Springs - Concurring
Judge Franks. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Don Smith v. Keyport Self-Storage, et al.
This is a negligent supervision lawsuit. The plaintiff rented a unit from the defendants' selfstorage facility. An employee of the self-storage facility stole the plaintiff's property and disappeared. The plaintiff sued the storage facility and its owners, alleging negligent supervision of the dishonest employee. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded compensatory damages. The defendants appeal. We reverse, finding that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to support a finding of negligent supervision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Custom Interiors & Supply Company, v. Inn-Way, Inc.
This appeal arises from a dispute over whether Defendant Robert Shropshire personally guaranteed the debts of Defendant Inn-Way, Inc., to Plaintiff Custom Interiors & Supply Company, Inc. Custom Interiors sued Inn-Way to recover the sum of $54,537.30 for orders placed by Inn-Way after October 1996. Custom Interiors also sued Inn-Way’s president and owner, Robert Shropshire, contending that Shropshire had personally guaranteed Inn-Way’s debts to Custom Interiors. After Inn-Way filed for bankruptcy protection, Custom Interiors proceeded to trial against Shropshire. The trial court entered a judgment finding that Custom Interiors had failed to carry its burden of proof and that Shropshire was not a personal guarantor of Inn-Way’s debts to Custom Interiors. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against these findings. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Coldwell Banker-Hoffman Burke and Donna Sliney, et al., v. Kra Holdings, et al.
Plaintiff, a licensed affiliate real estate broker, sued to collect a commission for locating a particular property for a prospective buyer. When the sellers refused to sell the property, the prospective buyer abandoned efforts to obtain the property. About six weeks later, the prospective buyer contacted one of the sellers and was able to negotiate with all of the sellers for purchase of the property and ultimately consummated the purchase for a higher sale price than originally contemplated. Plaintiff alleges that she had an oral agreement for $150,000.00 commission, or, alternatively, that she was acting as a facilitator and entitled to a commission for her services as such. From the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant, plaintiff has appealed. Tenn.R.App.P. 3, Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court affirmed |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Katrinka A. Stalsworth, and Jim Stalsworth, v. Robert A Grummons, M.D.
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court properly awarded as discretionary costs fees of the defendant’s expert witnesses who did not testify because the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit on the day of trial before any proof was taken. The fees in question were charged by the defendant’s medical experts for reserving time in their schedules to testify, thereby precluding any other income-producing professional activities. The award of discretionary costs is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |