APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The incidents both involved physical altercations, one of which resulted in Davis’s conviction for simple assa ult. This matter is before the Court to determine whether the respondent, Guy S. Davis, should be held in contempt for practicing law after the entry of a thirty-day temporary suspension.

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility alleging that Danny Kaye Dockery violated an order of
suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct.
R. 9, § 18. The provisions of Rule 9 require a suspended attorney to notify clients of
an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to
adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain
from accepting new clients.

The appellant, David L. Hathaway, appeals as of right his conviction in the Criminal Court of Pickett County. After a bench trial, he was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“D.U.I.”) and was sentenced to a suspended term of six (6) months and one (1) hour in the county jail. The trial court revoked appellant’s driver’s license for one (1) year and ordered him to serve forty eight (48) hours in jail. Appellant was also ordered to pay a $350 fine.

On appeal, the appellant challenges the admissibility of the results of his breathalyser examination and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

This is an appeal by defendants/appellants, Earl and Carl Poss, from a decision of the chancery court in a boundary dispute. It is the Posses contention that the chancery court erred when it approved the survey  entered into evidence by the plaintiffs/appellees, Lionel and Nancy Lulow.  The diagram below, while not drawn to scale, depicts the layout of the relevant tracts of land.  Reference to this diagram will be helpful in understanding the following facts.

The captioned appellant is a prisoner in the punitive custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. On February 19, 1997, he filed in the Trial Court a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that on November 16, 1996, he filed with the Department a petition for a declaratory order correcting an erroneous entry showing two life sentences which have been merged.

This petition under Rule 12, Tenn. R. App. Proc., to review a rate making order of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority presents a host of procedural and substantive issues. We affirm the agency order.

Property owners alleged in a petition for common law certiorari that the city of Decherd acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to rezone their property from residential to commercial. The Chancery Court of Franklin County dismissed the petition. We affirm.

This appeal involves another chapter in a lingering, acrimonious dispute between two Nashville lawyers stemming from a failed settlement of a case in federal court. After one of the lawyers abandoned his third-party complaint against the other lawyer for fraudulent misrepresentation, the other lawyer filed a malicious prosecution action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. When the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was premature, the prevailing lawyer sought Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions against the lawyer whose malicious prosecution claim had been dismissed. The trial court declined to grant sanctions, and the lawyer seeking sanctions has appealed. We have determined that the record supports the trial court’s decision not to award sanctions and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s decision.

The plaintiff, Ervin Smith, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court as to his rights in regard to an alleged public right-of-way on property adjoining plaintiff’s land.

This appeal involves a dispute over a real estate commission on four retail properties in Memphis. After a former client leased these properties, a real estate broker filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a commission from its former client and the lessors of the four properties. The trial court granted the former client’s motion for summary judgment and, following a bench trial, dismissed the broker’s claims against the four lessors. On this appeal, the broker asserts that the trial court erred by granting his former client’s summary judgment motion and that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s dismissal of his claims against the four lessors. We have determined that the trial court properly granted the summary judgment motion and that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s judgment in favor of the four lessors.

This appeal involves a biological father's obligation to support his thirteen year old son.

The defendant was indicted, charged, and convicted of burglary and sentenced as a career offender to twelve years imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for burglary since the State failed to prove intent to commit theft. Finding no merit in the defendant’s argument, we affirm.

Mr. Anderton has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn. R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts with regard to his actual gross income in 1996 and 1997. Ms. Anderton has filed a response to these motions. We have determined that Mr. Anderton’s motions should be granted.

This breach of contract case is before us on a Rule 54.02, Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. appeal. The only question for our decision is whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for certain consequential damages arising from the defendant’s breach of contract. We reverse the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a provision allocating the responsibility for paying legal expenses in the event of a default or breach of two leases. The lessee filed suit against the lessor in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration that the leases had expired and requesting its attorney’s fees in accordance with the provisions of the lease agreements. The trial court granted the lessee’s motion for summary judgment and declared that the leases had expired but denied the lessee’s claim for legal expenses. The lessee has appealed. We have determined that the trial court correctly interpreted the lease agreements and, therefore, affirm the summary judgment.

In this construction contract dispute, the Chancery Court of Montgomery County granted a judgment plus prejudgment interest to Razorback Marble Manufacturing Company, Inc. On appeal, Roberts Construction Company, Inc. and D. D. Roberts, Individually, raise issues pertaining to the Contractor’s Licensing statutes and the Notice of Non-Payments statute. Razorback insists that it was due a larger judgment and a greater award of prejudgment interest.

C.L.H. has filed a timely Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn. R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts. She asserts that our original opinion filed on June 12, 1998 misapprehends material facts with regard to her more recent self-improvement efforts, and she offers new evidence regarding her educational attainments and the stability of her living environment.

Twenty former employees of “HealthTrust,” a ____________ sued  HealthTrust and its “successor in interest,” Columbia Health Care Corporation, to recover share of stock (or the value thereof) which they had  purchased with earned bonuses and for the value of shares of stock due some of the plaintiffs due them upon discharge. Two of the plaintiffs nonsuited, leaving eighteen.

The appellant, Edward Shane Rust, was indicted by a Coffee County Grand Jury for the offenses of arson of personal property and reckless endangerment. Following a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of arson of personal property, a class E felony, and received a two year sentence in the Department of Correction. The appellant was found not guilty of reckless endangerment. In this appeal as of right, the appellant contends:

I. The evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for arson of personal property;
II. The sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive; and
III. The trial court should have granted an alternative sentence.

After a review of the evidence, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for arson of personal property.

I concur in Judge Todd’s opinion affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. I write separately simply to emphasize the following points:

First, the bonus plan allowed the plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company at a price below the market price. When the plaintiffs left the company before the shares fully vested, they did not forfeit their investment; they simply lost the difference between what they had invested and the market value of the shares. The difference in the purchase price and the market value is what this controversy is about.