APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiffs, Shoney's Inc., and Shoney's of Canada, Inc., have appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing their suit against the defendants, Chic Can Enterprises, Ltd., Little Caesars Pizza of Alberta, Inc., and Gen Group, Incorporated for lack of personal jurisdiction of said defendants.

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce in which the issues presented on appeal by defendant-appellant are:
I. The Trial Court erred in reducing valuation of the wife's civil service retirement pension by hypothetical social security benefits.
II. The Trial Court erred in awarding the parties' marital interest in annuities to their adult daughter in trust.
The plaintiff-appellee presents a third issue as follows:
III. The Trial Court erred in failing to adjust the distribution between husband and wife to equalize the tax effect on any unrealized gain on stocks.

This is a premises liability action. The case was tried before a jury to the conclusion of the plaintiffs' proof. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' proof, the defendants moved for a directed verdict which was granted. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a premises liability action. The case was tried before a jury to the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, the defendants moved for a directed verdict which was granted. Judgment ws entered in favor of the defendants. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an extraordinary appeal in the most literal sense of the word. The appellant prevailed in the trial court, but nevertheless, as appealed claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to consolidate this action with another action relating to the same subject matter pending in the same court.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tennessee Claims Commission wherein the commissioner determined that the occurrences at issue constituted a taking of property by the State of Tennessee rather than a nuisance. The commissioner concluded that the exclusive remedy for a taking is an inverse condemnation action pursuant to T.C. A. § 29-16-123. Since actions predicated on inverse condemnation are outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission, the commissioner dismissed the claim. This appeal resulted. We reverse the judgment of the commissioner.