APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Vanderbilt University Medical Center (“Vanderbilt”) filed suit in the Chancery Court of Davidson County against Macon County (“County”) seeking a judgment against County in the amount of $20,671.95 for medical services rendered by Vanderbilt in Nashville to an inmate who had been in the  custody of County and who had been brought to Vanderbilt for treatment. Both Vanderbilt and County filed motions for summary judgment,  supported by affidavit or affidavits. Following a hearing, the chancellor denied County’s summary judgment motion and granted summary  judgment in favor of Vanderbilt. On appeal, County has raised two issues which are as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in ruling that venue was proper in Davidson County; 2. In granting Vanderbilt’s motion for summary judgment.

This appeal involves a dispute between partners. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert D. Fulcher III, Eleanor Fulcher, and Allen-Fulcher Partnership, appeal the trial court’s ruling in favor of Appellees, R. Chancellor Allen, H. Stanley Allen, and Harwell-Allen Partnership.

A white college professor denied tenure sued his university employer for breach of contract and racial discrimination. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed both claims. We reverse the judgment dismissing the contract claim and affirm the ruling on the discrimination claim.

Burson and Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. ("Burson & Simpson") appeals from the trial court’s affirmance of a decision rendered by the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), whereby the Planning Commission characterized a proposed amendment to a planned unit development as a “basic change in development concept,” and whereby the Planning Commission disapproved the amendment. We find that, based upon the record before this Court, the Planning Commission’s disapproval of the proposed amendment was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious and, therefore, we reverse the holding of the trial court.

This premises liability action involves a disabled person who was injured when he tripped on a floor mat while entering a convenience market in Decherd. The patron’s suit against the market, originally filed in the Chancery Court for Franklin County but later transferred to the Circuit Court for Franklin County, alleged that the market had created a dangerous condition, especially for patrons using crutches, by placing the floor mat at its entrance. The market moved for summary judgment, relying on the deposition testimony of the patron, two employees of the market, and the market's surveillance camera videotape of the patron’s fall. The trial court granted the motion, and the patron has appealed. We have determined that the market is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, accordingly, affirm the summary judgment.
 

This is a suit to enforce a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien. The plaintiff asserted it made improvements to real property based on an agreement with the owner of the property. The property owner moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties. The trial court granted summary  judgment to the defendant property owner, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff Steve Anderson appeals the trial court’s order which dismissed his complaint seeking specific performance and other relief against Defendants/Appellees Hacks Crossing Partners and Exxon Corporation. We affirm.