APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court awarded petitioner/appellant's attorney a reasonable attorney's fee.

This is a will contest in which the contestants have appealed from a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the will.

The majority has reached the correct result in this case. I have prepared this separate opinion for two reasons. First, we should state clearly that the contestants’ trial counsel should not be faulted for requesting the trial court to use a Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction that the Tennessee Supreme Court had disapproved only one month before trial. Second, we should conclude without equivocation that the record contains material evidence upon which the jury could have determined that the beneficiary had clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption of undue influence arising from her confidential relationship with Mrs. Haney.

This appeal involves a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought to file a separate suit against previously unknown defendants in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 (1994). The Fifth Circuit Court for Davidson County granted the new defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was filed one day late. The plaintiff asserts on this appeal that the trial court erred by failing to extend the time for filing his amended complaint by three days in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.05. We have determined that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 does not extend the deadline for taking the actions required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119 and, therefore, affirm the trial court.

This is a dispute over a contract to provide garbage and industrial waste collection in three Wayne County cities. The contractor sued the three cities for failing to prevent a rival contractor from providing the same services to some residents of each city and sued the rival contractor for inducing a breach of contract, for misrepresentation, and for interference with business relations. After a bench trial the Chancery Court of Wayne County dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the liquidation of an insolvent captive insurance company. TheCommissioner of Commerce and Insurance, acting as the insurance company’s liquidator, filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking to avoid an $800,000 transfer made by the insurance company to pay off an outstanding bank loan. The bank moved to dismiss the commissioner’s petition because the challenged transfer occurred outside of the avoidance period in Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-9-317(a)(2)(B) (1994). The trial court granted the motion, and the commissioner has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

The defendant, Opryland USA, Inc., has appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Lucille Beske in the amount of $125,000 for personal injuries sustained in a fall on the premises of defendant. The jury awarded plaintiff $200,000, but the Trial Judge suggested a remittitur of $75,000 which was accepted by the plaintiff without protest. The Trial Judge also awarded plaintiff judgment for $1,404.50 discretionary costs.

This cause came to be heard upon the Rule 3 appeal by appellant Larry Russell from the Order of the trial court dismissing his claim against appellee Dailey for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.

Gloria Jean Woolfork (“plaintiff”) filed suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County against Phillip H. McNeil and R. Brad Martin, d/b/a Jackson Inns, Ltd.,1 seeking damages for her personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant’s negligence. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Although defendants have raised several issues on appeal, the pivotal issue in this case is whether the trial court properly performed his function as a thirteenth juror in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. After reviewing this record, we are of the opinion that he did not, and we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

This appeal involves a suit to determine ownership of an 18.5 acre tract of land located in Lincoln County, Tennessee. The facts are as follows.

In this divorce proceeding, the plaintiff, Syble B. Stephenson, has appealed from a judgment entered by the Trial Court on April 11, 1995, overruling a motion to alter or amend a judgment previously entered on November 14, 1994, dealing with distribution of marital property and indebtedness thereon, child support arrearage, future child support and medical expenses, visitation and possession of a list of personal belongings.

This case involves the ownership of the mechanical royalty rights to a catalogue of songs written by the appellant, Earl Montgomery. The appellee, Kayla Nicole Nunley, contends that her late husband, Billy Gene Nunley, purchased the right to collect those royalties from Mr. Montgomery in 1975. Mr. Montgomery testified that he never sold the rights, and that he did not even know Mr. Nunley. He claims that the Nunleys were guilty of converting the funds derived from his ownership rights.

Plaintiff, New Life Corporation of America (New Life), appeals from the order of the trial court which granted summary judgment to defendant, Thomas Nelson, Inc. (Nelson).

This case came to be considered by the Court upon a grant of a Rule 9 application for permission to appeal an interlocutory Order of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favorof the defendants - appellees and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case arises from the termination of appellant, Carl Nelson, as employee, officer and director of B & M Printing Company. The pertinent facts are as follows: In 1968, Nelson, together with appellees, Harold E. Martin and Jack W. Gammon, formed a partnership named B & M Printing Company for the purpose of engaging in the commercial printing business. In 1969, the three partners converted the partnership into a corporation and were issued 100 shares each of the corporation's stock. There were no other shareholders in the corporation. Nelson, Gammon and Martin were all employed by the corporation and acted as the corporation's only officers and directors. The presidency of the corporation was initially rotated between the three parties every year, but at the time of Nelson's termination, Martin was the president and had been for several years. The parties received no compensation for their duties as officers and directors, but did receive salaries, commissions based on individual sales, and bonuses as employees of the corporation. In addition, the parties received rent money from the corporation through their partnership, BCJ Enterprises, which owned the property on which B & M Printing Company was located