Gary L. Watts and Janet Watts, Parents And Next Friends of Clinton D. Watts, Deceased v. Earnestine J. Morris, et al.
This case arises from the death of a graduate student near the University of Memphis. While crossing the street, decedent was struck by a vehicle. Decedent’s parents, on his behalf, have sued the City of Memphis, pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging that the City negligently maintained the defective, unsafe, or dangerous street that decedent was crossing. The trial court held that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Governmental Tort Liability Act waived the City of Memphis’ immunity from suit or that the City of Memphis was negligent. In addition, the court found that both decedent and the driver of the automobile that struck decedent were negligent and were each 50% at fault of the accident. We affirm on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to prove that the street was a defective, unsafe, or dangerous condition for which the City’s immunity was waived. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tommy McDaniel, et al. v. Amal Rustom, M.D., et al.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice against emergency room physicians who treated their daughter. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs’ only expert was not qualified to testify as to the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the defendants’ profession and specialty in their community or in a similar community. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs’ expert did not meet the qualifications of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-115. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, et al. v. Deliquent Taxpayers, as shown on the 2003 real property Deliquent tax records for Shelby County Trustee, et al. Home Funds Direct, A California Corporation/Delinquent Taxpayers v. William Garrett
This case involves the right to redeem property purchased at a tax sale. The trial court confirmed the petitioner’s right to redeem the property, divested title from the purchaser, and vested title in the original owners. The purchaser appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joyce Holt v. State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services
Plaintiff mother who had formally surrendered parental rights to her five children on March 21, |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Audrey Pryor v. Rivergate Meadows Apartment Associates Limited Partnership
When Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint and discovery requests, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of Defendant’s liability. The trial court set a hearing to determine Plaintiff’s damages, and both Plaintiff and Defendant litigated the issue. After the trial court determined the amount of damages, Defendant asked, for the third time, the trial court to set aside the default judgment and schedule a trial on the merits. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, and Defendant appeals. Because Defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense in its motion to set aside the default judgment, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Wayne Buckner, et al.
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“the insurance company”) brought an action for declaratory judgment against Wayne Buckner (“the policyholder”) and others1 seeking a determination regarding its liability and duty to defend under a homeowners’ insurance policy (“the policy”) issued to the policyholder. The insurance company’s action was prompted by lawsuits filed following an incident in which the policyholder’s two teenage sons, William Russell Buckner and Joshua Thomas Buckner (who will be collectively referred to as “Will and Josh”2), fired rifles at tractor-trailers on an interstate highway, resulting in the death of Aaron E. Hamel, the driver of a car, and severe injuries to Kimberly Bede, a passenger in another car. The lawsuits included a personal injury suit by Ms. Bede and David Hickman,3 a personal injury suit by Denise Deneau,4 and a wrongful death action by John Hamel and his wife, Rosemary Hamel.5 The plaintiffs and defendants in the underlying lawsuits will be referred to collectively as “Defendants,” their posture in this declaratory judgment action. Defendants filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment, seeking a determination that the policy provides coverage to the defendants in the underlying actions and that each of the shootings was a separate, covered occurrence. The trial court, in dismissing the insurance company’s complaint and granting judgment on the counterclaims, held, among other things, that an exclusion in the policy against injuries “reasonably expected or intended” by the insured is not implicated by the facts of the underlying suits.6 We hold that the exclusionary provision applies to bar coverage for the suits against Will Buckner and Josh Buckner. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter judgment in favor of the insurance company as to the suits against Will Buckner and Josh Buckner. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Henry Frazier, et al. v. Rickey Helton, et al.
Buyers of a corporation filed suit against sellers for breach of contract. Buyers filed a motion for default judgment for failure to answer written discovery requests, which the trial court granted. Following a hearing on damages, the court entered a final judgment. Two of the sellers filed a motion, seeking to alter or amend the judgment, a new trial or for relief from the judgment, which the trial court denied. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc., et al - Dissenting
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc., et al
Shareholder and employee of a professional corporation filed suit demanding payment of the fair value of his shares in the corporation following termination of his employment. The corporation subsequently tendered $760.48 to the Sumner County Clerk and Master, the amount it believed represented the fair value of the shareholder’s shares as of the date of his termination of employment with the corporation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the corporation finding the shareholder failed to contradict the corporation’s proposed fair value. Finding error, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Tom R. Smith v. Thomas Harding Potter
Appellant and Appellee are both licensed attorneys practicing in the State of Tennessee. This appeal arises from Appellant's efforts to recover money owed by Appellee on two promissory notes. The trial court found that the promissory notes were executed in recognition of Appellee's debt under two lease agreements. The court concluded that the lease agreements called for fee-splitting between attorneys in violation of Rule 1.5(e) of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. We do not address the merits of the trial court's conclusion on this question. Instead, we find that no final judgment exists in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Antwone J. Terry v. Tennessee Department Of Correction, et al.
The appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the chancery court, seeking review of prison disciplinary proceedings. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not notarized or otherwise sworn, as required by statute. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Pugh's Lawn Landscape Company, Inc. v. Jaycon Development Corporation
This is an appeal of the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of Appellee. The arbitration agreement entered between Appellant and Appellee permitted either party to appeal the arbitrator’s decision directly to this Court. The agreement specified that this Court would conduct a de novo review of the arbitrator’s decision as if it had been reached by the trial court. We find that Tennessee’s arbitration statutes do not permit the parties to expand the scope of judicial review. Accordingly, we apply the standard of review specified in the statute and affirm the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, Executrix of The Estate of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., Deceased, and HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. d/b/a Centennial Medical Center
Patient sued her surgeon for malpractice and the hospital for allowing the surgeon to practice in its facilities. The trial court ruled that the hospital was not eligible for the qualified immunity provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-219(d)(1). We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, Executrix of The Estate of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., Deceased, and HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc. /d/b/a Centennial Medical Center - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Coleman Management, Inc v. David Meyer, James W. Rayner, Richard D. Baker, Rose McKee, and NCF Associates
This is an action to recover a real estate commission. The defendants are the general partners of a partnership that owned a single asset, an apartment complex. In 1992, the partnership filed a reorganization petition in bankruptcy. The partnership hired the plaintiff real estate agency to sell the apartment complex while it was in bankruptcy. After a hearing to establish the value of the property, the bankruptcy court permitted the partnership to buy back the property for $9.8 million. Soon after the bankruptcy plan was confirmed, however, the partnership, through the plaintiff real estate agency, contracted to sell the property to a third party for $12.5 million. Upon discovering this, the bankruptcy court permitted the sale to the third party to take place for $12.5 million, but it ordered that the excess proceeds of the sale be placed in escrow. When the escrow funds were released, the plaintiff real estate agency did not receive its commission on the sale of the property. Consequently, the real estate agency filed this lawsuit against the general partners to recover its commission. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations and on the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands.” The trial court denied the motion and awarded the plaintiff real estate agency the commission sought plus prejudgment interest. The defendants now appeal. We affirm, finding that the lawsuit was timely filed, that the trial court did not err in declining to apply the unclean hands doctrine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Sanders v. Henry County, Tennessee
This appeal involves a statutory retaliatory discharge claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the employee failed to establish that he had refused to participate in or remain silent about “illegal activities,” within the meaning of the statute. The employee appeals. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Bryant v. Henry Klein
Personal injury plaintiffs filed suit against defendant motorist, who died prior to the filing of the suit, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. By special appearance, the deceased tortfeasor’s estate filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs had not properly instituted the action against the decedent in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-103 prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, but granted the estate a direct appeal to this Court. Finding error in the judgment below, we reverse and remand the case. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel E. Gremillion, M.D. v. Nashville Gastrointestenal Specialists, Inc.
This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a buy-out provision. One of the four physicians in a medical practice retired and requested a repurchase of his stock. The physicians had previously adopted a formula for the valuation of stock in such situations, but when it came time to apply the agreement, they could not agree as to the meaning of several phrases within the agreement. The trial court heard testimony regarding the parties’ intentions as to the agreement and testimony from two accountants regarding their interpretations of the agreement. After interpreting the various phrases of the agreement, the trial court valued the physician’s stock and awarded prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent since the date of the physician’s retirement. We reverse the trial court’s ruling as to the meaning of the agreement and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard V. Fuller, et al. v. John Dennie Crabtree, Jr., M.D.
A doctor who earlier submitted an affidavit in this medical malpractice action and who also participated in the peer review process at the defendant doctor’s hospital entered an appearance as plaintiffs’ counsel. The trial court declined the defendant doctor’s request to have the physician/attorney disqualified as plaintiffs’ counsel. After considering the issue on interlocutory appeal, we reverse and find that the physician/attorney is disqualified and may not represent plaintiffs. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Harold R. Gunn and Patsy R. Gunn
This is an appeal from the grant of a voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff homeowners’ association sued the defendants in general sessions court for dues owed. The homeowners’ association was awarded a judgment. The defendants appealed to the circuit court below, seeking a de novo hearing. For several years, the appeal remained pending with no activity. In the meantime, the defendants sold the subject property. The judgment due to the homeowners’ association was paid by the purchaser of the subject property to remove any cloud on the title. Having been paid, the homeowners’ association filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment in the circuit court. The defendants filed a motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. The circuit court entered an order dismissing the defendants’ appeal. The circuit court later denied the defendants’ motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. From that order, the defendants now appeal. We find that the circuit court order is not final and appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the defendants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Brennon Harville and Jimmy Harville, Sr.
The State filed this action to terminate the parental rights of both parents to their three minor children. Upon hearing the evidence, the Trial Judge terminated the parental rights of both parents on several grounds. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: B.L.S.C., D.L.S., & D.J.C.
Mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three children based upon four separate grounds. Finding clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determinations on the grounds of mental incompetence and persistence of conditions, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Jackie Jackson, Administrator of the Estate of Karon Jackson v. Johnny Joyner, M.D., et al.
The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition testimony and awarded Defendants summary judgment. We vacate the award of summary judgment, reverse the trial court’s order excluding testimony of the expert witness, and remand for further proceedings. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Cortney Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner filed a Petition styled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” which the trial court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the petition, but on the basis that the petition was not supported by oath or affirmation nor does it state that it is the first application for a writ. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Seramur vs. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, brought this action to enforce an employment contract for benefits allegedly due under the contract. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that a provision in the employment contract to which the parties originally agreed to, was an unenforceable contract, as the provision amounted to an agreement to agree and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals |
