COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Ravenwood vs. Franklin
03A01-9705-CV-00156

Creative vs. Bale
03A01-9611-CH-00379

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Bruce Hutton, et al vs. City of Savannah, TN
02A01-9612-CV-00314
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

W2001-01724-COA-R3-JV
W2001-01724-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Christy R. Little

Joseph Leibovich, et al vs. The Kroger Co., et al
02A01-9608-CV-00192
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Decatur Co. Bank vs. Welborn Duck, et al
02A01-9603-CH-00057
Trial Court Judge: John Walton West

Adams TV of Memphis vs. Comcorp of TN, et al
02A01-9606-CH-00142
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Carol Strong vs. Timothy Strong
02A01-9701-CV-00005
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Steve & Tammy Carroll vs. J.R. Roach
02A01-9703-CV-00056

William Key vs. Julian Bolton, et al
02A01-9703-CR-00072
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

Young vs. Young
01A01-9610-CH-00473
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

Tate vs. TN. Bd. of Paroles & Myers
01A01-9703-CV-00156
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell

Kireyczyk, et. al. vs. MF Athletic Club
01A01-9612-CV-00549

01A01-9702-
01A01-9702-
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

02A01-9607-CH-00173
02A01-9607-CH-00173
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan

Roulette v. Roulette
03A01-9701-GS-00010

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Ray Darris Thompson v. Stanley Dickerson, et al.
02A01-9702-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Karen R. Williams

Plaintiff, Ray Darris Thompson, appeals the order of the trial court dismissing his
complaint against the defendants, Stanley Dickerson, Betty Hammond, Vernon Brown, June Wesson, Bruce MacDonald, and Christine Bradley, for failure to prosecute.

Robert E. Evans, v. Amcash Mortgage Company, Inc.
01A01-9608-CV-00386
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

In this defamation action, Robert Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Amcash Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Franklin American Life Insurance Company1 for an alleged defamatory statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees. In granting the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Franklin American Corporation from the suit, dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under a theory of “slander by action,” and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege. Defendant appeals the judgment of the court below arguing that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees concerningthe reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination because the statement is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory in nature. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory.

Allen D. Curtis and wife, Carolyn June Curtis, v. William M. Rice, and Rice & Papuchis Construction Company, Inc.
01A01-9605-CH-00211
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Allen D. Curtis and his wife, Carolyn June Curtis, from a decision of the chancery court which dissolved the partnership formed between Curtis and
defendant/appellee, William M. Rice, and which distributed the partnership's assets.1 The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Brian David McCray, v. Irene Carol Klanseck McCray
01A01-9612-CH-00553
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The husband sued for absolute divorce, claiming cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable differences. The wife denied that her husband was entitled to a divorce, and she counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the husband’s complaint and awarded the wife a divorce from bed and board and custody of the four minor children. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, child support and attorney fees.

The Terminix International Company, L.P. v. Stephen Tapley and Denford Tapley
02A01-9701-CH-00028
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

This appeal arises out of an action brought by a company to enforce covenants not to compete against two former employees. Plaintiff, The Terminix International Company, L.P. (Terminix), appeals from the order of the trial court setting aside the default judgment against the defendants, Stephan Tapley and Denford Tapley (the Tapleys), dismissing the action for lack 2 of venue, and dismissing the petitions to hold the Tapleys in contempt for violating a permanent injunction.

Mall of Memphis Associates vs. Tennesse State Board of Equalization, et al., - Concurring
02A01-9609-CH-00214
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This appeal involves a constitutional challenge by the Mall of Memphis  Associates (the Mall) to an increase in its property value by the Assessor of Property for Shelby County, Tennessee (the Assessor). The respondents, Tennessee State Board of Equalization (the Board) and Rita C. Clark,1 the Assessor, appeal the judgment of the chancery court voiding an increase in the property assessment for the petitioner, the Mall. The chancery court held that the Board’s reappraisal of the Mall’s property violated the Mall’s Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection under the United States Constitution.

Hal Angus, D/B/A, Hal Angus Demolition, v. City of Jackson
02A01-9509-CV-00208
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit A. Lafon

In this case, a demolition company filed a lawsuit against the City of Jackson for breaching an alleged implied contract between the two parties by failing to mail the plaintiff demolition company invitations to bid on demolition projects. The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm.