COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

01A01-9602-CH-00086
01A01-9602-CH-00086

01A01-9604-CH-00178
01A01-9604-CH-00178
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

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

02A01-9510-CV-00225
02A01-9510-CV-00225
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler

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

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

Linda Plunk v. National Health Investors
M1999-01596-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
This appeal involves a nursing home visitor who injured herself by stepping into a grassy depression in the building's landscaping. The visitor and her husband filed suit in the Circuit Court for Lawrence County alleging that the nursing home's owner had failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. A jury apportioned sixty percent of the fault to the nursing home and forty percent to the visitor and awarded the visitor $40,000 for medical expenses and permanent impairment. Both parties filed post-trial motions after the trial court entered a $24,000 judgment for the visitor. The visitor and her husband sought a new trial or an additur because the jury had not awarded damages for pain and suffering. The nursing home filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion for a judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the nursing home's motion and suggested a $5,000 additur. The nursing home accepted the additur, and both parties appealed. The visitor asserts that the trial court erred by failing to grant a new trial, and the nursing home asserts that the trial court erred by denying its Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion. We have determined that the trial court erred by denying the nursing home's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 motion because it was not reasonably foreseeable that visitors would be walking on the grassy area where the plaintiff fell. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

Mary J. Drozd, v. Hermitage Villa Condominiums Homeowners Association, Inc., Hillsboro Property Management Company, Inc., and Gary Waller and State of Tennessee
01A01-9408-CV-00366
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Robert E. Corlew, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

From the decision of the Trial Court dismissing a portion of the original complaint and from the subsequent decision of the Trial Court granting summary judgment for the Defendants as to a second ground of recovery sought, the Plaintiff was granted an interlocutory appeal to this court.

02A01-9507-CH-00146
02A01-9507-CH-00146
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

01A01-9511-CV-00503
01A01-9511-CV-00503
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

01A01-9603-CH-00098
01A01-9603-CH-00098
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9605-GS-00237
01A01-9605-GS-00237
Trial Court Judge: Barry R. Brown

01A01-9608-CH-00364
01A01-9608-CH-00364
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

01A01-9510-CH-00450
01A01-9510-CH-00450
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9604-CH-00152
01A01-9604-CH-00152
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

01A01-9605-CH-00208
01A01-9605-CH-00208
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin

02A01-9511-CV-00251
02A01-9511-CV-00251
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

02A01-9607-CV-00156
02A01-9607-CV-00156
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

03A01-9602-JV-00043
03A01-9602-JV-00043

03A01-9604-CV-00153
03A01-9604-CV-00153

03A01-9605-CH-00162
03A01-9605-CH-00162

Ty Farming Company, Inc., v. George Belew and The County of Dyer, Tennessee
02A01-9510-CV-00232
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley. Jr.

Plaintiff-Appellant, TY Farming Company, Inc. (“TY Farming”), appeals the judgment of the trial court denying TY Farming’s claims against Defendants-Appellees Dyer County (“Dyer County”) and George Belew (“Belew”) relative to a dirt road which crossed properties owned by TY Farming, Belew, and other landowners in Dyer County. The trial court found that the dirt road had been abandoned by the County and the general public, that the road was no longer a public road, and, therefore, that the County had no obligation to maintain the road. Accordingly, the judgment denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against the County and dismissed the County from the lawsuit. With regard to TY Farming’s claim against Belew, the judgment granted TY Farming an easement across the property of Belew. The trial court further found that Belew had deprived TY Farming of its previously existing easement of ingress and egress to its property, but the court found that TY Farming had suffered no damages because it had continuous access to its property by another route. Accordingly, the trial court denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against Belew and dismissed TY Farming’s complaint in its entirety.

Thomas Tarpley, v. Charles Traughber, Chairman, Tennessee Board of Paroles
01A01-9608-CH-00365
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

The captioned plaintiff, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, filed this suit for certiorari from an adverse decision of the Board of Paroles. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

David Hutton v. Ruth E. Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee - Dissenting
01A01-9601-CH-00023
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

The majority has decided that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 (1994) permits the purchaser of a used jet aircraft to reduce his state tax liability by deducting the value of a previously owned prop-driven aircraft from the purchase price of the jet aircraft. I do not agree that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 applies to the purchase of the jet because the transaction does not involve a trade or series of trades.

David Hutton, v. Ruth E. Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee - Dissenting
01A01-9601-CH-00023
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

The majority has decided that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 (1994) permits the purchaser of a used jet aircraft to reduce his state tax liability by deducting the value of a previously owned prop-driven aircraft from the purchase price of the jet aircraft. I do not agree that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 applies to the purchase of the jet because the transaction does not involve a trade or series of trades.