Douglas Shanklin vs. UT Medical W1999-01982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This appeal arises from a trial court's finding that a subsequent action by Doctor was barred under the doctrine of res judicata due to the court's decision in an earlier case. On appeal, Doctor argued that his earlier action for age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act was not the same as the current action, which involves breach of contract and unjust enrichment. We affirm the trial court's ruling.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Arthur/Mary Anderson vs. John Howser W2000-00937-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
This is a medical malpractice case. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from the defendant physician. The plaintiffs filed the opposing affidavit of an expert physician. When the defendants attempted to depose the plaintiffs' expert, they were informed that he would not be testifying at trial. However, the plaintiffs' expert's affidavit was never withdrawn from the record, nor was his testimony recanted. The trial court gave the plaintiffs additional time to secure an expert for trial. The plaintiffs failed to secure an expert within the time period and filed a notice of voluntary non-suit. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' response to the motion for summary judgment must be supported by the affidavit of an expert who is expected to testify at trial. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. Where the plaintiff submits the affidavit of an expert in response to a motion for summary judgment, and it is undisputed that the expert will not testify for trial, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim warranting a trial, and the granting of summary judgment is appropriate.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
McDonnell P.L.C. vs. Select-O-Hits W2000-00044-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This is a suit for the recovery of attorney's fees. The Appellee brought a complaint against the Appellant in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, seeking to recover $120,000.00 in attorney's fees. The Appellant filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking to recover $10,000.00 it paid to the Appellee and $10,953.05 it paid in legal fees to another law firm. The Chancery Court of Shelby County found that the $120,000.00 fee was excessive and entered a judgment in favor of the Appellee in the amount of $89,685.00. The trial court dismissed the Appellant's counterclaim. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the Chancery Court of Shelby County granting a reduced amount of attorney's fees to the Appellee and dismissing the Appellant's counterclaim. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision as modified.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Allied Business vs. Abraham Musa W1999-00378-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
This appeal involves a breach of contract regarding a commission owed for the sale of a business. Allied, the broker, claims that Abed Amro owes it a commission based on the contract between the parties. Amro, however, claims that he is not liable under the Listing Agreement even though it is undisputed that he signed the contract. The trial court held that Allied was not entitled to a judgment against Amro because Amro did not have an ownership interest in the business that was sold. We reverse.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Nancy Record vs. Brian Record W2000-01294-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
Husband appeals a final decree of divorce as it pertains to an upward deviation of child support, division of marital property and debt, and the award of alimony in solido for attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Connie Givens vs. Ed Mullikin W1999-01783-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
Plaintiff filed this action against defendant in an underlying personal injury suit and the defendant's liability insurance carrier, alleging that the defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of the attorneys the insurance company hired pursuant to its policy to represent the insured in defense of plaintiff's personal injury suit. The complaint alleges that said attorneys were guilty of abuse of process, invasion of privacy, inducing the breach of a confidential relationship, inducing the breach of an implied contract of confidentiality, and inducing the breach of an express contract. The trial court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, and this case is before this Court on a Tenn.R.App.P. 9 interlocutory appeal.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Wills & Wills vs. Raymond Gill W1999-01755-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Owners of adjacent properties entered into negotiations and a subsequent agreement regarding issues concerning their properties. Dispute between the parties arose after one owner began construction of a Walgreens store in an area one party contended was other than that designated for the location of future buildings on the plat configuring the parties' properties. The other party alleged that the parties did not have an agreement between them concerning the location of future buildings on the adjacent properties. The trial court determined that the parties only had a meeting of the minds as to drainage improvements and further determined that the agreement was a contract only for drainage in that the agreement did not contain specific, written restrictive covenants as to the location for future buildings. We affirm.
This is an appeal from the trial court's modification of an order of visitation increasing the appellee's amount of summer visitation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cheatham
Court of Appeals
S.E.A., Inc. vs. Southside Leasing Company and Moss W. Yater E2000-00631-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
S.E.A., Inc. brought suit in Knox County Chancery Court seeking an injunction and alternatively, damages, against its lessor, Southside Leasing Company, and Southside's secured creditor, Moss W. Yater, regarding a non-disturbance agreement. Yater is also Southside's majority shareholder, president and director. S.E.A.sought to sublease a portion of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the lease between S.E.A. and Southside, Southside consented to the sublease and executed the requested non-disturbance agreement. However, Yater, Southside's secured creditor, refused to execute the non-disturbance agreement unless Southside received a portion of the rent from the sublease. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment which were granted by the Trial Court. S.E.A. appeals the Trial Court's granting of summary judgment to the Defendants. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Turner vs. Turner M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Turner vs. Turner M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Dudley vs. Dudley M1998-00982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded the divorce to the Wife and divided the property. Husband appeals the award of the marital residence and its contents to Wife. We affirm.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Lassiter vs. Lassiter M1999-00374-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This case involves a divorce ending a seven-year marriage. The divorce was awarded to the wife on grounds of the husband's inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court divided the property and debts according to the parties' stipulations. The court then awarded the wife alimony in futuro and ordered the husband to pay $750 of the wife's attorney fees. The husband appeals the awards of alimony and attorney fees. We affirm.
Robertson
Court of Appeals
State Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. L.S., In the Matter of D.S. M1999-00847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
The Trial Court removed minor child from the parental home on grounds child was dependent and neglected. We affirm.
Pickett
Court of Appeals
Franklin Nat'l Bank vs. Prowell M2000-00580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
The Circuit Court of Williamson County refused to issue a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the General Sessions Court of that county because the petition was untimely and the same issues were already pending in an action in Maury County. We affirm.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Joiner vs. Metro Gov't M2000-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
The Trial Court entered consent Judgment over objection of defendant. We vacate Judgment and remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Wilson vs. So. Centr. Corr. Facility Disciplinary Bd M2000-00303-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
An inmate in a privately operated prison filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari against the disciplinary board at that facility. The trial court dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm
Wayne
Court of Appeals
Moss vs. TN Board of Paroles M2000-00128-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
At the hearing where appellant's parole was revoked, the Hearing Officer admitted sworn statements of alleged victims. The Trial Court upheld the revocation. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Barry Robinson v. Donald Brooks M2003-00185-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves the sale by auction of certain real property in Davidson County. The buyers brought suit in Davidson County Chancery Court seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, damages for breach of contract. From the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff buyers appeal. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Tammy Elizabeth Hickman & Danny Ray Hickman vs. Eugenia Darlene Hickman E2000-00927-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Plaintiffs sued to terminate the mother's parental rights. The Trial Judge held plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proof. We affirm.
Walter E. Everette, et al vs. Hubert G. Berry, et al E2000-00461-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this dispute over real estate, the Plaintiffs seek to have a quit claim deed conveying certain property to the Defendants declared spurious, as well as injunctive relief relative to rights-of-way adjacent to their property. The Chancellor granted the relief the Plaintiffs sought, resulting in this appeal. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Jimmy B. Hillard, et al vs. Buddie Ruth Franklin E2000-00402-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
This is a suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase certain real property for $80,000. Before the purchase was closed, a house on the property was destroyed by fire, and the defendant collected $35,000 as proceeds from her homeowners' insurance policy. The purchase of the property did not proceed to closing and the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of the contract at a purchase price of $45,000 -- this amount being the difference between the original purchase price and the insurance proceeds collected by the defendant. The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment. The defendant appeals, contending that this case is not ripe for summary judgment. We affirm.
Jefferson
Court of Appeals
Steamfitters vs. Phillip Morris W1999-01061-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
Union health and welfare funds brought an action against tobacco companies and their trade associations to recover the funds' costs of treating their participants' smoking-related illnesses. The tobacco companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the funds' economic injuries were derivative of the participants' physical injuries and, consequently, too remote for recovery. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the funds' antitrust claim but denied the motion on the funds' claims for fraud and deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Permission for interlocutory appeal was granted to the tobacco companies by both the trial court and the appellate court. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the antitrust claim and reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss on the remaining claims, finding the plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too remote, as a matter of law, to permit recovery. The cause is remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
