Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Don Davis
This appeal involves the decision of a probate court to approve the amended first and final accounting of a conservatorship and award attorney's fees for the conservator's defense of the accounting. The conservator, owner of a funeral home, conducted a $26,367.75 funeral for the conservatee. An interested party objected to approval of the funeral expenses and a hearing was held. The probate court ordered the conservator to return the proceeds from a prepaid burial life insurance policy to the estate, but confirmed the accounting in all other respects. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Ishaaq, a prisoner in the Department of Corrections serving a combined 130 year sentence for Class X felonies committed prior to July 1, 1982, seeks to rescind a waiver by which he chose, in 1987, to gain the sentence reduction credit benefits applicable to him under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-236. He seeks to rescind the waiver under the belief that he would thereby become eligible for mandatory parole. The trial judge dismissed his complaint, and we affirm the action of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Dr. Richard Wilson, the Plaintiff/Appellant, contends that the Chancellor erred in affirming an Administrative Judge's decision that Dr. Wilson engaged in conduct warranting his dismissal as a tenured faculty member at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the Defendant/Appellee, for violation of the University's policy against sexual harassment. We reverse the judgment of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs against the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
The plaintiff, Monroe E. Davis is a prisoner in state custody. He filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission ("the Claims Commission") against the State of Tennessee and the warden of the facility at which he is incarcerated, seeking damages for the alleged detention and/or conversion of his personal property by the warden. The Claims Commission granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
Trial Court refused to grant partial summary judgment as to the extent of land taken. On appeal, we reverse.
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court granting a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This is a case about the Open Records Act as applied to the telephone records of a Drug Task Force. After the Chancery Court of Putnam County ordered the County to produce the records, the County appealed, arguing that the records fit an exception to the Act or that the County should be able at the plaintiff's expense to redact the records to delete confidential information. We modify the chancellor's order to allow the County to redact the records at their own expense.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This case involves a claim of negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a home. The trial court found that Defendants' statements and actions constituted negligent misrepresentation of the condition of the property resulting in $25,000.00 in damages to Plaintiff. However, the trial court also found, applying principles of comparative fault, that Defendants were 60% at fault and Plaintiff was 40% at fault. A judgment of $15,000 was, thus, assessed against Defendants. Defendants appeal the court's finding of negligent misrepresentations, as well as the amount of damages determined by the court to be suffered by Plaintiff. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This case involves a claim of negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a home. The trial court found that Defendants' statements and actions constituted negligent misrepresentation of the condition of the property resulting in $25,000.00 in damages to Plaintiff. However, the trial court also found, applying principles of comparative fault, that Defendants were 60% at fault and Plaintiff was 40% at fault. A judgment of $15,000 was, thus, assessed against Defendants. Defendants appeal the court's finding of negligent misrepresentations, as well as the amount of damages determined by the court to be suffered by Plaintiff. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey F. Stewart
This appeal involves a dispute between Warren County, Tennessee and the Town of Morrison, a municipality located within Warren County, regarding the disposition of the revenue generated by the county local option sales tax. On March 21, 1988, plaintiff, Town of Morrison (hereinafter Morrison), filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against defendant, Warren County. The complaint alleges that under T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (Supp. 1995), a justiciable controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights to distribution of the county local option sales tax revenue. The complaint avers that the Warren County local option sales tax was adopted in 1969 and increased in 1976 and 1985. Morrison alleges that since 1969 the tax revenues have been collected by the Tennessee Department of Revenue and distributed to Warren County, but Warren County has refused to pay Morrison its share of the taxes as required by T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (2)(B). The complaint seeks a declaration of the rights of the parties to the sales tax revenues, and an accounting of, and a judgment for, Morrison's share of the local option sales tax.
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz
This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Richard and Kimberly King, from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to defendants/appellees, W. D. Schock, Co. ("Schock"), South Central Bell Telephone Co. a/k/a Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. ("Bell South"), and Charles LaRue.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt
In this case, we are presented with the issue of whether a private act is invalid as being in conflict with the general law addressing the same subject.Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company, v. Joe H
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson
This is an appeal by defendant, Michael Kingston Stevenson (Husband), from the trial court's award of alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, the amount of child support award, and the award of additional alimony in solido of $9,700.00 for plaintiff, Shelly Sue Douglas Stevenson's (Wife), attorney's fee.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High
The plaintiff counter-defendant, ShoLodge Franchise Systems, Inc. (hereafter "Sholodge") has appealed from a jury verdict of $327,272 in favor of the defendant counterplaintiff McKibbon Brothers, Inc. (hereafter McKibbon) for damages for breach of a franchise contract.
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt
This is an appeal by petitioner, Johnny W. Raines, from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for certiorari from a decision of the Tennessee Board of Paroles (Board).
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley
This is an appeal by defendant/appellant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro"), from the judgment of the trial court against it in favor of plaintiffs/ appellees, Richard and Barbara Arnold, and crossdefendant/ appellee, Gloria Ford.
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High
Glen Alcorn, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, petitioned the Chancery Court of Davidson County for an order that he be furnished with copies of certain documents that he believed would be helpful in the appeal of his conviction. Mr. Alcorn asked the chancery court to compel the State of Tennessee to provide him with the transcript of jury voir dire in his trial, and to compel the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department to provide him with a copy of the investigative file in his case. The court dismissed Mr. Alcorn's petition on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the dismissal.
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This dispute arises from a contract for capital improvements entered into between the plaintiff and the agent of the defendant. The primary issues on appeal are whether the agent had the authority to bind the defendant to the contract, and whether the trial court erred in limiting the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff. We affirm in part and modify the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The plaintiffs, Cocke County homeowners, brought this action seeking compensation for damage caused to their home by blasting activity on their neighbors' property. In response to interrogatories, the company that did the blasting identified the Cocke County Highway Commission as the provider of the explosives. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming Cocke County and the Cocke County Highway Commission (collectively "the County") as additional party defendants. Upon the County's motion, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint as to the County, holding that their action is time-barred. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the discovery rule applies to their action against the County, and, therefore, their claim is not time-barred. The County argues that even if the plaintiffs' action is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We hold that the discovery rule applies to actions against governmental entities and that there is a genuine issue for trial as to when the plaintiffs' cause of action "ar[ose]." We further hold that the complaint adequately states a cause of action, but only as to the plaintiffs' claim of common-law negligence. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
In this divorce case, the husband appeals the trial court's awards of alimony pendente lite and alimony in futuro to the wife. The record before us does not demonstrate that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Wayne and Mary Stuart ("Stuarts"), as foster parents, had physical custody of a set of twins ("Children") for approximately a year and a half when the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") removed the Children from the Stuarts' home and placed them with Paul and Susan Young ("Youngs"). The Stuarts later filed a petition in Knox County Juvenile Court seeking custody of the Children. While the custody matter was pending, the Youngs filed an adoption petition in the Trial Court which was granted. The Stuarts filed a motion to intervene and to set aside the adoption decree. The Trial Court granted this motion. The Youngs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and cited three grounds in support of their motion: (1) the requirement that adoptive parents have custody of the child; (2) DCS's consent to the adoption; and (3) the statutory foster parent preference for adoption. Without deciding the Stuarts' petition for custody, the Trial Court granted summary judgment as a matter of law to the Youngs. The Stuarts appeal. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This suit was filed in July of 1999 to enforce two judgments in favor of attorney Herbert S. Moncier ("Plaintiff") against Ronnie Charles Frye ("Defendant"). The Trial Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $32,242.29. In the first appeal to this Court, we concluded the action was not filed timely, vacated the judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and dismissed the lawsuit. No appeal was taken from that decision. The present appeal involves the Trial Court's holding of Defendant in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying post-judgment orders of the Trial Court to respond to discovery and appear for deposition. These orders were entered and the alleged contemptuous conduct occurred before the underlying judgment was reversed by this Court. We affirm.
