APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal is from a summary judgment granted to plaintiff against defendants by the Trial Judge. Essentially, defendants insist that the record contains evidence of misrepresentations of the value of the property by plaintiff’s agents, which was 1Triggs’ and Childers’ earlier affidavits apparently claim that Stooksbury showed them both Smith appraisals. Their later affidavits, however, refer only to the second Smith appraisal. 2 purchased by defendants, and that these representations are actionable under their counter-claims.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly occurring on April 9, 1993 in the early evening, when the vehicle operated by the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant. Upon trial, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff establishing damages at $8,445.00 and further determined that defendant was 51% at fault for the accident. The Trial Judge approved the verdict and plaintiffs have appealed.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by Deryl and Polly Glasner individually and as parents and next friend of Cody Glasner, who was born October 6, 1991.1 As winnowed by pleadings, the surviving claim is on behalf of Cody, who was born brain dead. The parents of Cody conceded that their individual claims were time-barred.  This condition is known as a prolapsed cord. His resuscitation is alleged to have been contrary to the prevailing standard of care in this jurisdiction, since he had no reasonable prospect for a qualitative life.

The parental rights of Yvonne Bardin were terminated by the Juvenile Court of Hamilton County and she appeals. Four (4) children are involved. The issue presented for review is whether the evidence is clear and convincing. We find that it is and affirm.

The Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review held that this appellee was disqualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily quit her job without good cause. Judicial review was sought by the appellee, and the decision of the Board of Review was reversed by the Chancellor, who found that “there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of fact that the petitioner’s shift change was temporary.” The employer appeals and presents for review the propriety of the reversal of the decision of the Board of Review.