Bales vs. Snyder
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Farrow vs. Ogle
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Lambert vs. Invacare
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Britton vs. Britton
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Revels vs. Revels
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
|
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Engman vs. Vista Mutual Funds
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Odom vs. City of Chattanooga
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ragon vs. O'Charley's
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Henry vs. Nova
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frazier vs. Cocke
|
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
|
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
West vs. Luna
|
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
This case involves the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with a breach of a residential construction contract. Defendant, Bill Hayes, appeals the judgment of the trial court on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Linda Mires, $5,000.00 for 1Rufus and Linda Mires filed the original suit in April 1995 but took a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Mires died after the suit was refiled, so Mrs. Mires amended the complaint to list herself as plaintiff, individually, and as the executrix of the estate of Rufus Mires. Since Mr. Mires was alive throughout the events that precipitated this suit, we use the plural “plaintiffs” throughout this opinion. 2 violation of TCPA and the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $5,907.50 in attorney fees and expenses. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
This is an action on a promissory note. In 1993, plaintiff, Wanda Tate, sold her women's clothing store to the defendants, Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell and their corporatin, L'Argent, Inc. (collectively "buyers"). Several months after the sale, the buyers, dissatisfied with some of the inventory sold to them, tendered less than the full payment amount called for by the promissor note they had signed in partial consideration for the sale. Tate rejected the partial payment and sued for recovery of the full amount due under the terms of the note. The buyers argued tha Tate had made material misrepresentations regarding some of the the inventory, resulting in the value of the inventory they purchased being substantially less than anticipated at the time of the sale. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anna Lee Crisp, v. Irville C. Boring and wife, Wanda Sue Boring
This is a boundary dispute. The plaintiff alleges that the location of the boundary line between her property and the adjoining land of the defendants is shown by a survey made by Sterling Engineering, Inc. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip W. Twitty and Alice F. Twitty v. Young v. Kenton, Young, and Roy Edward Brown and Volunteer Realty Company of Knoxville, Inc.
On October 26, 1993, plaintiffs purchased an new residence in Oak Ridge from the defendants. Thereafter, the unfinished basement of the residence flooded on several occasions after heavy rainfall. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Yvette Porter Caira v. Ronald Stephen Caira
This case is before us on appeal from the trial court’s decree of divorce and grant of child custody and support to the Appellee, Ronald Steven Caira. In bringing this appeal, Appellant raises two issues for consideration. 1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to award primary custody of the minor children of this marriage with Defendant/Appellee. 2. Whether the trial court made an equitable property distribution of the debts, assets and retirement proceeds of this marriage. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Renee Miglin v. Daniel Walter Miglin - Concurring
The husband in this divorce case challenged almost every aspect of the trial court’s orders, including child custody, alimony, the division of marital property and the terms of an injunction imposed to prevent him from interfering with the wife’s authority over the children. We modify the injunction because we believe that its provisions are overbroad. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Appeals |