Hopper vs. Tabor
03A01-9801-CV-00049
|
Court of Appeals | 08/19/98 | ||
Edward Traughber, et al. vs. Kelly A. Kress, et al.
01A01-9709-CV-00525
|
Court of Appeals | 08/19/98 | ||
Harris vs. Buckspan, M.D.
01A01-9801-CV-00041
Originating Judge:Barbara N. Haynes |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 08/19/98 | |
Revels vs. Revels
03A01-9803-CV-00104
|
Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | ||
Bales vs. Snyder
03A01-9710-CH-00496
|
Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | ||
Lambert vs. Invacare
03A01-9802-CV-00071
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | |
03A01-9709-CH-00387
03A01-9709-CH-00387
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | |
Britton vs. Britton
03A01-9804-CV-00143
|
Greene County | Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | |
Farrow vs. Ogle
03A01-9711-CV-00501
|
Court of Appeals | 08/18/98 | ||
Odom vs. City of Chattanooga
03A01-9710-CV-00480
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | |
Frazier vs. Cocke
03A01-9804-CV-00128
|
Cocke County | Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | |
Ragon vs. O'Charley's
03A01-9711-CH-00499
|
Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | ||
Henry vs. Nova
03A01-9804-CH-00121
|
Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | ||
Margaret Engman vs. Vista Mutual Funds
02A01-9706-PB-00132
Originating Judge:Walter Baker Harris |
Madison County | Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | |
Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
02A01-9706-CH-00131
Originating Judge:Joe C. Morris |
Chester County | Court of Appeals | 08/17/98 | |
West vs. Luna
01A01-9707-CH-00281
Originating Judge:Tyrus H. Cobb |
Lincoln County | Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | |
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
01A01-9601-CV-00052
Originating Judge:Henry F. Todd |
Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | ||
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
01A01-9708-CH-00396
Originating Judge:Ben H. Cantrell |
Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | ||
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
01A01-9709-CH-00480
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | |
Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
02A01-9707-CV-00172
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.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Judge Bill Acree |
Weakley County | Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | |
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
01A01-9707-CH-00363
Originating Judge:Billy Joe White |
Fentress County | Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | |
Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
M2000-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 08/12/98 | |
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
02A01-9708-CV-00177
Originating Judge:Robert L. Childers |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 08/10/98 | |
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9806-CV-00155
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 08/10/98 | |
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
03A01-9710-CV-00459
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.
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Originating Judge:Judge Wheeler A. Rosenbalm |
Court of Appeals | 08/06/98 |