APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Please enter some keywords to search.
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