State of Tennessee, Ex. Rel., v. Brook Thompson, Riley Darnell, Charles Burson, Don Sundquist, and Penny White
These consolidated cases arise from the efforts of appellants, Lewis Laska and John Jay Hooker, to have their names placed on the ballot for the August 1, 1996, statewide election to the office of Supreme Court Justice. The deadline for filing nominating petitions for this election was 12:00 noon on May 16, 1996, in accordance with T.C.A. § 2-5-101. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9506-CH-00098
|
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9510-CV-00185
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9507-CR-00110
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9507-CR-00110
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9509-CV-00150
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9511-CC-00219
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9601-CH-00002
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9512-CH-00131
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9509-CV-00083
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9511-CC-00121
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9509--CV-00112
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9511-CH-00122
|
Supreme Court | ||
Charles M. Cary, Jr., v. Cathy Ann Cary
Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion to amend the judgment to delete the award of attorney fees, the Court concludes that the motion is without merit and should be denied. It is so ORDERED. |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, A/K/A Otis Smith
The State has requested a rehearing in this case. The Court has considered the petition and finds it to be without merit. The petition to rehear is denied. The Members of the Court adhere to the positions stated in the original Opinions in this cause. It is so ORDERED. |
Supreme Court | ||
Eli Mike and James A. Schrampfer and Jane N. Forbes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of David L. Osborn v. PO Group, Inc. a Tennessee Corp., James W. (Bill) Anderson III, and the Estate of Harold L. Jenkins - Concurring
This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming an award of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs' suit charging the breach by a majority shareh older of a fiduciary duty owed to minority shareholders is barred by the o ne year statute of limitations. This Cou rt concludes that the applicable period of limitations is three years and remands the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiffs' action was time-barred. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Blanche Bilbrey and Cecil Asberry v. Vestel Smithers - Concurring
This case presents for review the right of a child born out of wedlock to inherit from his natural father who died prior to the amendment of Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-2-105(a)(2)(B) (Supp. 1995) in 1978. The record supports the finding of paternity, but the claimant failed to establish the right to inherit as required by the statute; however, the appellant is estopped to deny the claimant's asserted interest in the decedent father's real property. |
Pickett | Supreme Court | |
Geneva Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products Corporation
In this retaliatory discharge action, the plaintiff, Geneva Coffey, appeals fromtwo aspects of the Court of Appeals’ judgment: (1) its suggested remittance of the punitive damage award from $500,000 to $150,000; and (2) its disallowance of the $20,000 in “front pay” awarded by the trial court. After a careful consideration of the law and the record in this case, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in both respects. Therefore, we reverse that court’s judgment, and reinstate, in its entirety, the judgment rendered by the trial court. |
Overton | Supreme Court | |
Frank L. White v. Hubert A. McBride, Executor - Cocurring
This case presents the question of whether the plaintiff, attorney Frank White,may recover attorney’s fees from the estate of Kasper McGrory. This broad question may, in turn, be divided into two specific subissues: (1) whether the contingency fee contract between White and McGrory is “clearly excessive” under Disciplinary Rule 2-106 of the Code of Professiona Responsibility, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, and is, thus, unenforceable; and (2) if the contingency fee contract is unenforceable, whether White may, nevertheless, recover attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit basis. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the contract is unenforceable and that White is not entitled to recover under the theory of quantum meruit. Because the probate court and the Court of Appeals held that White could not recover under the contract, but could recover on a quantum meruit basis, we reverse the latter part of the judgment. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
02A01-9503-CV-00036
|
Carroll | Supreme Court | |
01A01-9502-CH-00037
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9507-CV-103
|
Supreme Court | ||
Scarlett J. Love v. College Assessment Services Inc. and Nursing Careers, Inc.
The plaintiff, Scarlett Lay Love, appeals from the denial of her motion to dismiss, the motion being predicated upon the alleged failure of the defendants, College Level Career Services, Inc., and Nursing Careers, Inc., to perfect an appeal from the general sessions court to the circuit court within the ten-day period provided for in Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-108. The sole issue for our determination is as follows: whether a facsimile (fax) transmission of a notice of appeal and appeal bond, sent by the defendants to the clerk of the general sessions court on the final day on which an appeal could be taken, is sufficient to perfect the appeal. For the following reasons, we conclude that the facsimile transmission was not sufficient to perfect the appeal; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9501-FD-00011
|
Supreme Court |
