Dorothy and Roger Smith v. Maury County - Concurring
The plaintiffs, a mother and her son owning adjoining farms on a rural road in Maury County, sued the county for a nuisance created when the county improved the road. The county argued that the exclusive remedy was for inverse condemnation, and that the one year statute of limitations barred the action. On appeal the county asserts, in addition to its original defense, that the damages awarded were beyond the range of reasonableness. We reverse the judgment below and remand for a new trial. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thompson, Jr., v. Department of Codes Administration, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This case involves the refusal of the Metropolitan Department of Codes Administration ("the Department") to issue building permits to the petitioner/appellant landowner. Planning to divide and sell his land, the petitioner made preparations to subdivide this land pursuant to the Department's advice on how to avoid regulation by the Metropolitan Planning Commission ("MPC"). However, due to a new interpretation of existing statutory law, the petitioner's preparations, once completed, were no longer adequate and the Department deemed that the land must undergo review before the MPC as a subdivision. Consequently, the zoning administrator of the Department denied the petitioner the building permits and the petitioner brought suit claiming first that the division of land was not a "subdivision" as that term is defined by statute. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the zoning administrator's application of the newly-interpreted law to him violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process and effected against him the application of a retrospective law. In addition, the appellant claimed that the Department should be equitably estopped from refusing to issue the building permits. The trial court granted the Department's motion for involuntary dismissal of the petitioner's case. We affirm the decision of the trial court on all issues. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Terry David Mackie v. Sarah Catheine Mackie
This case represents an appeal from the grant of divorce upon stipulation of grounds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129. The parties to this action, Terry David Mackie ("Husband"), and Sarah Catherine Campbell Mackie ("Wife") were married on November 6, 1984. Husband filed a complaint in Williamson County Circuit Court on March 6, 1997, seeking divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and irreconcilable differences. On March 20, 1997, Wife answered and counterclaimed. In her answer, Wife admitted the ground of irreconcilable differences and alleged inappropriate marital conduct on the part of the Husband. Over the next 14 months the parties participated in successive proceedings regarding pendente lite custody of their severely ill minor child. The case was originally set for trial on June 3, 1997. Both parties agreed to continue the case; each sought a scheduling order for the sequence of discovery. The parties were ordered to attend mediation on February 23, 1998. On May 18, 1998, Husband moved to change pendente lite custody and to compel discovery. This motion was to be heard on June 3, 1998. At the June 3, hearing, in an admittedly unorthodox proceeding, the parties stipulated under oath that each had grounds for divorce. At this point in the hearing, both parties were sent into an antechamber to provide for the division of the marital estate and custody of the child. These negotiations are documented in handwritten notes, signed by the parties and their counsel, and appearing in the record. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Layne, individually and as the surviving spouse of James T. Lane, v. Pioneer Life Insurance Company of Illinois
This is a suit in chancery for declaratory judgment relative to a policy of insurance. The primary question presented is whether or not participation by the insured in a motorbike event known as an "enduro" constitutes "racing" within the meaning of an exclusion in the policy. After the insured died from injuries he received while participatingin an "enduro," the defendant insurance company denied coverage. The lower court found that the particular loss in this case was excluded from coverage. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Cooke Battles and Leslie Cooke Jones v. First Union Bank, Peggy Smith, Beverly G. Pitt, Leigh Ann Howard, and Exchange Insurance Co - Concurring
Two of the beneficiaries of a will sued the witnesses and a notary public because the will was not properly executed. The plaintiffs also sued a bank, the witnesses’ employer, for not training its employees on how to properly witness wills. The Chancery Court of Sumner County granted the defendants summary judgment. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Southwest Progressive Ent., Inc. v. Shri-Hari Hospitality, LLC and Trans Financial Bank of Tennessee - Concurring
A construction company sued a hotelkeeper for payment of the balance due on their contract. The trial court ordered the hotelkeeper to pay the balance, as well as pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. We affirm the award of pre-judgment interest, but we reverse the award of attorney fees. We also reverse a $500 offset the trial court granted to the defendant for the plaintiff’s alleged failure to complete a punch list. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Grei S. Hinsen, v. Mark E. Meadors, Individually and D/B/A MEM Contractors, and Hailey Brown
This is an action by a homeowner against a remodeling contractor and a painter for the failure of the paint inside the house. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the homeowner’s claims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Keith Newcomb and wife Caroline Newcomb, Darden E. Davis and wife, Ann J. Davis, v, William Gonser, and wife Lois Gonser and Christopher Gonser, and wife Lisa Gonser, and Shirley Zeitlin & Company
This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Michael and Caroline Newcomb and Darden and Ann Davis, from the decision of the Davidson County Chancery Court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants/appellees William and Lois Gonser. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James R. Tully, Jr. v. USA Wireless, Inc., PMT Investments, Inc. and Patrick M. Thompson et. al.
The Chancellor granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s fraud claim. Because we believe the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to make out a claim of fraud, and the defendant has been unable to negate those allegations, we find the fraud claim inappropriate for summary judgment, and we reverse. We also find that the plaintiff has not waived his contract claim, and we remand this case to the trial court for the resolution of both claims. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Terrell Jackson
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jerry Darrell Duncan
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Roger Vance
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Harrison Pearson
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Imogene Dixon v. State
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Rita L. England v. Cigna Insurance Co.
|
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Edwin Elam vs. Martha Elam
|
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9908-CH-00237
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Tire Shredders vs. ERM
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Hawkins vs. Hart
|
Supreme Court | ||
Hathaway vs. First Family Financial Svcs.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Concrete Spaces vs. Sender
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Schering Plough Healthcare vs. State Bd. of Equalization
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Abdullah Morrison v. State of Tennessee
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9809-CC-00316
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Johnny Shields
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |