Robert C. Daniels, v. Charles Traughber, Chairman, Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction, filed in the Trial Court a petition for the writ of certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles on April 18, 1996, rescinding its order of April 9, 1994, granting the prisoner a parole. At the time of the rescission, the prisoner had not been released from custody. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lunn Real Estate Investments, v. Boiler Supply Company, Incorporated
This case involves a contractual dispute between the lessor and lessee of certain commercial property. The appellant, Lunn Real Estate Investments, Inc. (Lunn), leased the subject premises to the appellee, Boiler Supply Company, pursuant to an agreement executed by the parties on January 1, 1989. On August 31, 1995, Lunn served Boiler Supply with written notice that it was requiring the latter to vacate the premises by October 1, 1995.1 On October 5, 1995, Lunn filed a detainer action in the general sessions court seeking possession of the property. By order entered April 19, 1996, the court found the claim for possession moot due to Boiler Supply’s vacating of the premises on November 30, 1995, but awarded Lunn a judgment for two months holdover rent plus attorney’s fees.2 Lunn appealed the decision to circuit court where, after a hearing, a judgment was entered for Lunn for $17,790. Lunn now appeals from that decision to this Court requesting additional compensatory damages, due to Boiler Supply’s alleged failure to maintain the premises in accordance with the contract, and attorney’s fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, v. Gary Lewis Thompson
The appellant, Gary Lewis Thompson, was indicted by a Monroe County Grand Jury for the offense of vehicular homicide, driving under the influence, third offense, and driving on a revoked license. On July 22, 1996, the appellant pled guilty to DUI, third offense, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Prior to the guilty plea hearing, the State moved to nolle pros the vehicular homicide charge, which was granted. Additionally, the trial court, upon appellant’s motion, dismissed the charge of driving on a revoked license. Immediately following entry of the guilty plea, the State, for the first time, requested seizure and forfeiture of the appellant’s John Deere tractor, which he was operating at the time the DUI offense occurred. Following a sentencing hearing on September 6, 1996, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months twenty-nine days in the county jail and assessed a fine of $7,500 for the DUI, third offense conviction. The appellant’s release percentage was fixed at 75%. The trial court also ordered that the farm tractor be “confiscated” from the appellant’s possession and forfeited to the State. On November 8, 1996, the written order to seize and forfeit the tractor was entered. The appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(ii), raising the following two issues: I. Whether the period of confinement in the jail is excessive; and II. Whether § 55-10-403(k)(1) properly authorizes forfeiture of his tractor. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Bill McMurry v. Hancock County Election Commission, John Knox Walkup, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
The appellant, a nonlawyer, was elected to the office of General Sessions Judge of Hancock County in the August 1990 general election. |
Hancock | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually; Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually
The plaintiff describes himself as a whistle blower, as that term has come to be used, and seeks damages for his termination from employment because he allegedly refused to participate in and keep silent about certain allegedly illegal corporate activities. The allegations were denied by the defendants whose motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of (1) whether he was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment or whether these reasons were pretextual, (2) whether a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge remains viable in this jurisdiction, and (3) whether his termination constituted outrageous conduct by the defendants. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is denovo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of thecorrectness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). See, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). We will refer to the plaintiff as Hubrig, or as the appellant, or as the plaintiff. This record is unusually prolix; prima facie, it appeared to reflect a trial by affidavit, an impermissible use of RULE 56, see: Womack v. Blue Cross- Blue Shield, 593 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. 1980), but an in-depth analysis reveals that the trial court correctly held that the totality of the evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of fact or law. We therefore affirm the judgment. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jerry Cunningham vs. Baker, et al
|
Court of Appeals | ||
DHS vs. Epps
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Greene vs. Evans
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9901-CH-00015
|
Court of Appeals | ||
City of Blaine vs. Hayes
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Miller vs. Hembree
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Foulke vs. City of Greeneville
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
McClellan vs. Stanley
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Russell vs. Crutchfield
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Regan vs. Malone
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Ronnie Erwin v. Moon Products
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Hampton vs. TN. Truck Sales, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bickford vs. Bickford
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
McGill vs. Hendrix
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Huang vs. Gates vs. Huang
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Vaughn, et. ux. vs. King, et. ux.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Vaughn vs. Vaughn
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy H. Vaughn, v. Mary Runyon Vaughn
The trial court found that there had been a change of circumstances and increased Jimmy Hunter Vaughn’s [husband’s] alimony obligation to Mary Runyon Vaughn [wife] from $400.00 per month to $600.00 per month. The court also found that husband should pay $350.00 as reasonable attorney fees to wife’s attorney |
Court of Appeals | ||
Northcott vs. Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Calkins vs. Calkins
|
Sevier | 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.