APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The husband sued for absolute divorce, claiming cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable differences. The wife denied that her husband was entitled to a divorce, and she counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the husband’s complaint and awarded the wife a divorce from bed and board and custody of the four minor children. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, child support and attorney fees.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Allen D. Curtis and his wife, Carolyn June Curtis, from a decision of the chancery court which dissolved the partnership formed between Curtis and
defendant/appellee, William M. Rice, and which distributed the partnership's assets.1 The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Plaintiff, Ray Darris Thompson, appeals the order of the trial court dismissing his
complaint against the defendants, Stanley Dickerson, Betty Hammond, Vernon Brown, June Wesson, Bruce MacDonald, and Christine Bradley, for failure to prosecute.

In this defamation action, Robert Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Amcash Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Franklin American Life Insurance Company1 for an alleged defamatory statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees. In granting the Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Franklin American Corporation from the suit, dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant under a theory of “slander by action,” and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege. Defendant appeals the judgment of the court below arguing that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees concerningthe reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination because the statement is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory in nature. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the statement made by Defendant’s attorney to one of Defendant’s employees regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s employment termination is subject to a qualified privilege and is not defamatory.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the defendant, who assisted his co-defendants in committing an aggravated robbery, was criminally responsible under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2) for additional offenses committed by them.

This appeal arises out of an action brought by a company to enforce covenants not to compete against two former employees. Plaintiff, The Terminix International Company, L.P. (Terminix), appeals from the order of the trial court setting aside the default judgment against the defendants, Stephan Tapley and Denford Tapley (the Tapleys), dismissing the action for lack 2 of venue, and dismissing the petitions to hold the Tapleys in contempt for violating a permanent injunction.

In this case, a demolition company filed a lawsuit against the City of Jackson for breaching an alleged implied contract between the two parties by failing to mail the plaintiff demolition company invitations to bid on demolition projects. The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm.

In this breach of contract case, David Wayne Gurien (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Allstate Insurance Company (“Defendant”) for Defendant’s failure to compensate him for the theft of his automobile pursuant to the terms of the insurance contract that he had with the Defendant. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $18,300.00 in compensatory damages and $4,575.00 for the Defendant’s bad faith refusal to pay under the terms of the insurance contract. A motion to alter or amend resulted in an adjustment of compensatory damages to $17,300.00 to account for the deductible. The issues on appeal relate only to the award of the bad faith penalty.
 

This appeal involves a constitutional challenge by the Mall of Memphis  Associates (the Mall) to an increase in its property value by the Assessor of Property for Shelby County, Tennessee (the Assessor). The respondents, Tennessee State Board of Equalization (the Board) and Rita C. Clark,1 the Assessor, appeal the judgment of the chancery court voiding an increase in the property assessment for the petitioner, the Mall. The chancery court held that the Board’s reappraisal of the Mall’s property violated the Mall’s Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection under the United States Constitution.

This appeal arises from the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Maple Ione Stocks (Stocks) in the Chancery Court of Obion County. The co-administratrices C.T.A., Gwyneth J.
Hughes (Hughes) and Linda Lyons (Lyons), appeal the order of the chancery court vacating the 2 order admitting Stocks’s will to probate because of a lack of jurisdiction and/or venue, which was made final pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.