Cathy Hall vs. City of Gatlinburg E2001-01470-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle
Cathy L. Hall ("Plaintiff"), was attending a convention at the convention center of the City of Gatlinburg ("Defendant"), when she fell and sustained physical injury. Plaintiff fell in one of two separate areas just mopped by Defendant's employee. After the parties submitted proof at trial, the Trial Court found Defendant negligent. The Trial Court allocated 80% fault to Defendant and 20% fault to Plaintiff. In addition to Plaintiff's compensatory damages, the Trial Court awarded damages for loss of consortium to Plaintiff's husband, Eddie Lee Hall ("Husband"). Defendant appeals, as do Plaintiff and Husband. We affirm.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Amy Arnold vs. Kevin Arnold E2001-00527-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this divorce action, husband has appealed the amount of child support awarded, the custody award, and the alimony and attorney's fees awarded to wife. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Court.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Curtis Daniels vs. Mary Daniels E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Rhea County questions whether the Trial Court erred in failing to award Ms. Daniel any portion of Mr. Daniel's retirement benefits, whether the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital estate, and whether the Trial Court erred in failing to award Ms. Daniels rehabilitative alimony. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in part and reverse in part.
Rhea
Court of Appeals
Susan Cooper vs. Kent Cooper E2001-00716-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
This appeal from the Chancery Court of Hamilton County questions whether the Trial Court erred in increasing Ms. Cooper's alimony award. Additionally, it questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Ms. Cooper and in refusing to dismiss her Answer and Counter-Complaint. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court in part and reverse in part and remand.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Hillary R. Sanders E2001-00946-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Conrad E. Troutman, Jr.
In this appeal from the Claiborne County Chancery Court the Appellants, Conda Sanders, Bratcher Lee Sanders, John Sanders, Linda Blazier, Bettie Gray, Kathryne Brock and Vonna Beason, contest the Trial Court's finding that the valid and controlling will of Hillary Sanders is the will executed by him on June 22, 1992. The Appellants contend that the joint will executed by Hillary Sanders and Fairobelle Sanders on September 8, 1974, is an irrevocable contract and, therefore, it, not the will of June 22, 1992, is the valid and controlling will of Hillary Sanders. We affirm the order of the Trial Court and remand with directions.
Claiborne
Court of Appeals
John Poore vs. Sonya Poore E2001-01250-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this custody dispute, the Trial Court awarded custody of the children to the father who was not the biological parent of one of the children. We vacate the Judgment as to that child and remand with instructions to apply the correct analysis of the evidence as to the custody of the child.
This appeal results from an employer’s recruitment and subsequent termination of an at-will employee after only two weeks of work. The employee filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County alleging breach of an implied employment contract, promissory fraud, and outrageous conduct. The trial court granted the employer’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the employee appealed. We vacate the order of dismissal because we have decided that the complaint states a claim for promissory fraud, albeit barely.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Daniel B. Taylor v. Donal Campbell M2001-00479-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding the prisoner's sentence credits. After his request for a declaratory order was denied, the prisoner filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against the Commissioner of Correction and others seeking a declaration that the Department had miscalculated his sentence and had erroneously refused to classify him as a Range I especially mitigated offender. The trial court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. We concur with the trial court's conclusion that the Department is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, accordingly, affirm the summary judgment.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Billy Lattimer v. Dept of Correction M2000-03126-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
A prisoner filed a lawsuit against the Department of Correction and some of its employees, claiming that the employees had confiscated and destroyed his photo albums, and that their actions amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of his due process rights. The trial court dismissed the suit without prejudice, ruling that the prisoner had only stated a claim for ordinary negligence against the State, and thus that the only forum available to him was the Tennessee Claims Commission. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Roger Thomas v. Gail Thomas M2001-01226-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Giles
Court of Appeals
Roger Thomas v. Gail Thomas M2001-01226-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Giles
Court of Appeals
Bd. of Commissioners of Roane County vs. Joe Parker E2001-00146-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
The Plaintiffs acquired a nine-acre tract of land zoned A-1, the General Agricultural District, which was the least restrictive zoning district in Roane County, and soon announced their intention to house a tiger thereon, a permissible use, which motivated the County to amend its Regional Zoning Ordinance by creating a new zoning district, A-2, with the permissible use declared to be the keeping thereon of exotic animals. Within three years the Plaintiffs had fifty or more exotic [Class I] animals on their nine-acre tract. They acquired three additional tracts which they requested be rezoned A-2 in order to expand their exotic animal sanctuary. Rezoning was refused and the Plaintiffs filed suit alleging the refusal was arbitrary and capricious; the County filed suit, seeking to enjoin the Plaintiffs from keeping more than one exotic animal
Roane
Court of Appeals
City of Knoxville vs. The Clinch Locust Garage E2001-00297-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
The Trial Court established the respective interests of owners and lessees in sums received in an Eminent Domain Case. On appeal, we affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Susan Whiton vs. Alan Whiton E2000-00467-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Susan Whiton vs. Alan Whiton E2000-00467-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Leon Williams General Contractor, Inc. vs. Hugh Hyatt E2001-00434-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
In this consolidated appeal Leon Williams General Contractor, Inc., and Leon Williams, individually and d/b/a Old World Cabinets appeal orders denying their demands for arbitration. We reverse the order of the Chancery Court denying the demand for arbitration filed by Leon Williams General Contractor, Inc. and affirm the order of the Circuit Court denying the demand for arbitration filed by Leon Williams, individually and d/b/a Old World Cabinets.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Dept.of Children's Svcs vs. LaShondra Whaley E2001-00765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: C. Van Deacon
This appeal from the Juvenile Court of Bradley County questions whether the Trial Court erred in terminating the parental rights of Ms. Whaley. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Stan Mosley vs. Carrie Mosley E2001-01006-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
In this divorce case, the husband appealed the classification and division of the parties' marital property and the basis for awarding child support. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment, as modified.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Stuart Lowenkron vs. Laura Lowenkron E2001-00957-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
The spousal support obligation of the appellant was suspended during his disability, but was ordered to resume when he returned to the practice of medicine. He disfavors the requirement that he must resume alimony payments when he returns to employment. Judgment affirmed.
Susan Whiton vs. Alan Whiton E2003-01279-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it reversed our determination that the guidelines promulgated with regard to child support were unconstitutional and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of the recently-released opinion in Gallaher v. Elam, S.W.3d 2003 WL 2010731 (Tenn. May 2, 2003).f
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Jerry L. Luster v. B. Campbell Smoot M2000-02191-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
A prisoner filed a civil rights intimidation suit against a public defender who uttered a racial slur during a recess in the plaintiff's criminal trial. The trial court granted summary judgment to the public defender. We affirm.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Guy Wilson, et al. v. Thompson Const. Co., et al. M2000-03200-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
This is a suit by Guy Wilson and his wife Rhessa, owners of a building in Gallatin, Tennessee, against their general contractor in the construction of an addition to the building and against their electrical subcontractor. The complaint charges negligence in the use of a defective fiberglass ladder that broke as Guy Wilson was climbing on it to inspect the work. The trial court held that the general contractor, Thompson Construction Company, had breached no duty of care to Plaintiffs and that the electrical contractor, Gary R. Boyd, was an independent contractor for whose alleged negligence Thompson Construction Company was not vicariously liable. On such basis, the trial court granted summary judgment to Thompson Construction Company on all issues and, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 54.02, entered final judgment on all issues in favor of Thompson Construction Company. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Anthony Myers, et al. v. Allen Bryan, III M2000-03188-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This case originated as a suit against a subdivision developer, W. Allen Bryan, III, ("Bryan"), for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, all predicated on the failure of a subdivision plat plan to reflect an existing drainage easement. Thereafter, Bryan filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnification from the surveyor who prepared the plat plan, Ragan-Smith, Associates, Inc. ("Ragan-Smith"), in the event Bryan was cast in judgment. On this Tenn. R. App. P. 54.02 appeal, we are presented with the issue of whether Bryan's cause of action for failure to reflect the drainage easement on the plat plan is barred by the four-year statute of repose for surveying errors. The court below granted Ragan-Smith summary judgment, finding that Bryan's claim is barred by the aforesaid statute of repose. Bryan appeals, arguing that Ragan-Smith is not entitled to summary judgment because, according to Bryan, the omission of the drainage easement is an engineering error, not a surveying error, and hence, so the argument goes, the subject claim is not barred by the four-year statute of repose for surveying errors. In the alternative, Bryan argues that even if the failure to reflect the drainage easement on the plat plan is a surveying error, his third-party complaint was timely filed. We affirm.
