Opinions

Kenneth O. Burnett & Vickie S. Burnett v. Frank E. Krisle & d/b/a Elite Electric - Concurring
01A01-9505-CV-00196
Authoring Judge: Judge Hewitt P. Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Paul R. White

Kenneth O. Burnett and Vickie S. Burnett ("plaintiffs") filed suit in the Davidson County Circuit Court against Frank E. Krisle, individually and d/b/a Elite Electric ("defendant") seeking damages resulting from a fire caused by defendant's negligence that destroyed plaintiffs' home. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $90,733.56, reduced by a finding that plaintiffs were ten percent (10%) at fault. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal defendant has presented three issues for our consideration: (1) whether there was any material evidence in the record to support the jury verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial or a remittitur; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to present a witness for testifying after defendant had rested his case. We find no error and affirm.

02A01-9406-CV-00130
02A01-9406-CV-00130
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

02A01-9408-CV-00196
02A01-9408-CV-00196
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler

02A01-9409-CH-00219
02A01-9409-CH-00219
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

03C01-9507-CR-00192
03C01-9507-CR-00192

02A01-9302-CV-00039
02A01-9302-CV-00039
Trial Court Judge: James M. Tharpe

03C01-9404-CR-00156
03C01-9404-CR-00156
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

03C01-9108-CR-00236
03C01-9108-CR-00236
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

03C01-9505-CR-00135
03C01-9505-CR-00135
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

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

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

01C01-9308-CR-00249
01C01-9308-CR-00249
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

Michael v. Thompson
01C01-9406-CR-00185

01C01-9410-CC-00338
01C01-9410-CC-00338
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

01C01-9502-CC-00028
01C01-9502-CC-00028

01C01-9503-CC-00092
01C01-9503-CC-00092

01C01-9504-CC-00113
01C01-9504-CC-00113

01C01-9504-CC-00117
01C01-9504-CC-00117
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

01C01-9412-CR-00427
01C01-9412-CR-00427

03A01-9503-CH-00110
03A01-9503-CH-00110

03A01-9506-CH-00201
03A01-9506-CH-00201

Norma Sue Harrison v. James Nesbitt Harrison - Concurring
01S01-9412-CV-00l53
Authoring Judge: Justice Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This divorce case presents for review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court, that a one-half undivided interest in a tract of real property is marital property within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4-121(b)(1)(B) (1991). This Court finds that the interest is the husband's separate property, not marital property, thus requiring that the Court of Appeals' decision be reversed.

01S01-9503-PB-00044
01S01-9503-PB-00044
Trial Court Judge: James R. Everett

02C01-9505-CC-00118
02C01-9505-CC-00118
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

Lessie Blankenship, v. Century Health Services, Inc.
01A01-9504-00137
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Hewitt P. Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

Lessie Blankenship ("plaintiff") filed suit in the Circuit Court of Bedford County against Century Health Services, Inc. ("Century" or "defendant"), seeking damages for breach of a commercial lease. Following a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $44,943.80 for rent due under the lease, costs incurred by plaintiff in seeking to relet the premises, and attorney fees in the amount of 15% of the amount of the judgment. On appeal, Century presents five issues for review: Whether the trial court erred (1) in finding that Century had assumed the lease between plaintiff and South Central Home Health, Inc. (?South Central”), the original lessee; (2) in concluding that Century had not properly terminated the lease; (3) in finding that plaintiff had properly mitigated her damages; (4) in awarding plaintiff damages for future rent under the lease; and (5) in awarding plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of 15% of plaintiff's judgment. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.