Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
This case involves the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with a breach of a residential construction contract. Defendant, Bill Hayes, appeals the judgment of the trial court on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Linda Mires, $5,000.00 for 1Rufus and Linda Mires filed the original suit in April 1995 but took a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Mires died after the suit was refiled, so Mrs. Mires amended the complaint to list herself as plaintiff, individually, and as the executrix of the estate of Rufus Mires. Since Mr. Mires was alive throughout the events that precipitated this suit, we use the plural “plaintiffs” throughout this opinion. 2 violation of TCPA and the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $5,907.50 in attorney fees and expenses. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Gary Prude
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
West vs. Luna
|
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. James Nichols
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Address The Parole Eligibility Jury Instruction. In State v. King, ____ S.W.2D ____
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
|
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
|
Court of Appeals | ||
James Walker Hurst v. Scruggs, Inc.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Donna Lee Stephen v. R. C. Leamon and Conditionaire Company, Inc.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jacob E. Carter v. Lumbermen's Underwriting
|
Carter | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Don Carter
|
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Ramsey
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Creekmore
|
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Robinson
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Franklin
|
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Terry Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Roger Terrance Johnson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Charlene Hardison - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur with a ll portions of Judge Lafferty’s op inion with the exception of the portion that reduces the period of confinem ent from six (6) months to ninety (90) days. I might agree with that ultimate result after a specific finding of facts by the trial court following the dictates of the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. However, it is my opinion that the more appropriate disposition of this particular case is to remand it back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing which follows the specific requirements of the A ct. See State v. Ervin, 939 S.W.2d 581, 584-85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) and cases cited therein. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Charlene Hardison
The defendant, Charlene Hardison, appeals of right from a ruling of the Williamson County Criminal Court in which the trial court imposed a sentence of six (6) months confinement in the Williamson County Jail for the offense of driving on a revoke d license. Also, the Williamson County Criminal Court consolidated an appeal of the defendant for violation of probation from the Williamson County General Sessions Court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court upheld the judgment of the General Sessions Court and ordered the defendant to serve six (6) months, less forty-five (45) days credit, as per her plea of guilty, to run concurrently with the sentence for driving on a revoked license. Af ter a review of the entire r ecord, brief s of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the revocation of probation, but remand the sentences as modified. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
This is an action on a promissory note. In 1993, plaintiff, Wanda Tate, sold her women's clothing store to the defendants, Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell and their corporatin, L'Argent, Inc. (collectively "buyers"). Several months after the sale, the buyers, dissatisfied with some of the inventory sold to them, tendered less than the full payment amount called for by the promissor note they had signed in partial consideration for the sale. Tate rejected the partial payment and sued for recovery of the full amount due under the terms of the note. The buyers argued tha Tate had made material misrepresentations regarding some of the the inventory, resulting in the value of the inventory they purchased being substantially less than anticipated at the time of the sale. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anna Lee Crisp, v. Irville C. Boring and wife, Wanda Sue Boring
This is a boundary dispute. The plaintiff alleges that the location of the boundary line between her property and the adjoining land of the defendants is shown by a survey made by Sterling Engineering, Inc. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip W. Twitty and Alice F. Twitty v. Young v. Kenton, Young, and Roy Edward Brown and Volunteer Realty Company of Knoxville, Inc.
On October 26, 1993, plaintiffs purchased an new residence in Oak Ridge from the defendants. Thereafter, the unfinished basement of the residence flooded on several occasions after heavy rainfall. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |