APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a personal injury slip and fall case. The plaintiff was injured when she fell in the defendant’s restaurant due to a tray negligently left on the floor. The defendant restaurant admits liability but asserts that the evidence does not support the amount of the trial court’s award and seeks a remittitur. We affirm the trial court’s decision as modified.

In its eminent domain proceeding, the City of Lafayette (City) took a small strip of Mark and Ruby Hammock’s land along the City’s right-of-way for an existing street.

The controversy giving rise to this appeal had its genesis in a service contract for washers and dryers entered into between Plaintiff Bill Jennings and Defendant Lawler-Wood, Inc., which manageg Maple Oak apartments for the owners. 

The appellant, Charles R. Brown, appeals as of right from his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) by a Blount County jury. The defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days. He was ordered to serve forty-eight hours in the county jail before being placed on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-seven days. The defendant was also fined $350. In this direct appeal, the defendant presents two issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the trial court erred in charging the jury.

The court has correctly affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Mr. Darnall’s Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (Supp. 1998) claim. Even though I concur with the court’s decision, I have prepared this separate opinion to state my understanding of the elements of a Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 claim. I find this restatement necessary because of the Western Section’s reliance on Johnson v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 759 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) in Merryman v. Central Parking Sys., Inc., No. 01A01-9203-CH-00076, 1992 WL 330404 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 1992) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed).

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from summary judgment granted to the Defendants in a complaint asserting retaliatory discharge with the action based solely upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304.

The appellant states the issue before this Court thus:

A single, narrow issue is presented for consideration in this appeal: Does material evidence within the meaning of Rule 13d, appear in the record which suports the jury’s verdict of $140 ,000.00 in compensatory damages, and, if so, did the trial court erroneously grant a new trial?

The case history demonstrates that this issue is not properly before the Court for consideration.

This case involves eligibility for environmental cleanup funds. The plaintiff landowner appeals the decision of the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Tank Board finding the plaintiff ineligible to receive reimbursement from the petroleum underground storage tank fund established in Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-215-110. Upon initial review in chancery court, the Board’s decision was reversed. The trial court subsequently reconsidered its decision and, based on recent Tennessee appellate decisions, affirmed the Board’s decision to deny assistance. We affirm.