Gretchen Hart, v. Ronald Rick Hart
This is a post-divorce decree proceeding to adjust the amount of periodic alimony. The wife has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court increasing the alimony from $1,000 per month to $1,350 per month. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
W. Hudson Connery, Jr., et al. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, et al., - Concurring
I concur in Judge Todd’s opinion affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. I write separately simply to emphasize the following points: First, the bonus plan allowed the plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company at a price below the market price. When the plaintiffs left the company before the shares fully vested, they did not forfeit their investment; they simply lost the difference between what they had invested and the market value of the shares. The difference in the purchase price and the market value is what this controversy is about. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Razorback Marble Mfg. Co., Inc., v. D.D. Roberts Construction Company, Naran P. Patel, Kusum N. Patel, and Heritage Bank
In this construction contract dispute, the Chancery Court of Montgomery County granted a judgment plus prejudgment interest to Razorback Marble Manufacturing Company, Inc. On appeal, Roberts Construction Company, Inc. and D. D. Roberts, Individually, raise issues pertaining to the Contractor’s Licensing statutes and the Notice of Non-Payments statute. Razorback insists that it was due a larger judgment and a greater award of prejudgment interest. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Bennie Day and Karen Day v. City of Decherd, Otis B. Smith, Jr., Mayor, et al. - Concurring
Property owners alleged in a petition for common law certiorari that the city of Decherd acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to rezone their property from residential to commercial. The Chancery Court of Franklin County dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Consumer Advocate Division, v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Nashville Gas Company
This petition under Rule 12, Tenn. R. App. Proc., to review a rate making order of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority presents a host of procedural and substantive issues. We affirm the agency order. |
Court of Appeals | ||
David K. Wachtel, Jr., v. Western Sizzlin Corporation, F/K/A Franchisee Acquisition Cororation, v. David K. Wachtel, Jr. and Restaurant Management Services, Inc.
This breach of contract case is before us on a Rule 54.02, Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. appeal. The only question for our decision is whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for certain consequential damages arising from the defendant’s breach of contract. We reverse the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles F. Gaulden, and Wife, Ruth S. Gaulden, v. Robert L. Scruggs, and Wife, Joyce W. Scruggs
The question in this case is whether a purchaser of mortgaged property, who pays off the mortgage, takes an assignment of the note and deed of trust, and subsequently releases the deed of trust, can then sue the original mortgagee on the note. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the action. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Boiler Supply Company, Inc., v. Lunn Real Estate Investments
This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a provision allocating the responsibility for paying legal expenses in the event of a default or breach of two leases. The lessee filed suit against the lessor in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration that the leases had expired and requesting its attorney’s fees in accordance with the provisions of the lease agreements. The trial court granted the lessee’s motion for summary judgment and declared that the leases had expired but denied the lessee’s claim for legal expenses. The lessee has appealed. We have determined that the trial court correctly interpreted the lease agreements and, therefore, affirm the summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James F. Cook, Jr., D/B/A Cook Properties, v. Consolidated Stores Corp., Belz Investco, L.P., Urco, Inc., Union Realty Co. LTD., and South Plaza Co.
This appeal involves a dispute over a real estate commission on four retail properties in Memphis. After a former client leased these properties, a real estate broker filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a commission from its former client and the lessors of the four properties. The trial court granted the former client’s motion for summary judgment and, following a bench trial, dismissed the broker’s claims against the four lessors. On this appeal, the broker asserts that the trial court erred by granting his former client’s summary judgment motion and that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s dismissal of his claims against the four lessors. We have determined that the trial court properly granted the summary judgment motion and that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s judgment in favor of the four lessors. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of: S.M.L. (DOB 12/26/88), C.B.L. (DOB 4/14/92), D.K.J. (DOB 5/8/93) Children under the age of 18.
C.L.H. has filed a timely Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn. R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts. She asserts that our original opinion filed on June 12, 1998 misapprehends material facts with regard to her more recent self-improvement efforts, and she offers new evidence regarding her educational attainments and the stability of her living environment.
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Shelley Sackett v. Hal Roseman
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bradson Mercantile vs. Joseph Crabtree
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Henry Collier vs. Methodist Hosp., et al
|
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9707-CH-00157
|
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
King vs. King
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Connatser vs. Connatser
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Kellogg Co., vs. TN Comm., et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Fye vs. Kennedy
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Judd's vs. Muir
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9712-CV-00532
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Wilhoite vs. Proffitt
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Sanjurjo vs. Woods
|
Court of Appeals | ||
City of Knox vs. Garuin
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Moore vs. Feathers
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Hankins vs. Seaton
|
Court of Appeals |
COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.