Court of Appeals Opinions

Format: 04/19/2018
Format: 04/19/2018
Karen Davis vs. Herbert Smallwood
02A01-9706-CH-00131
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Chester County Court of Appeals 08/17/98
Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
M2000-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Davidson County Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
02A01-9707-CV-00172
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Acree

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.

Weakley County Court of Appeals 08/12/98
West vs. Luna
01A01-9707-CH-00281
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb
Lincoln County Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
01A01-9601-CV-00052
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd
Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
01A01-9709-CH-00480
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Williamson County Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
01A01-9708-CH-00396
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell
Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
01A01-9707-CH-00363
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
Fentress County Court of Appeals 08/12/98
Bradford/Jacqueline Roberts vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9806-CV-00155
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey
Shelby County Court of Appeals 08/10/98
Ancro Finance vs. Consumers Ins.
02A01-9708-CV-00177
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
Shelby County Court of Appeals 08/10/98
Phillip W. Twitty and Alice F. Twitty v. Young v. Kenton, Young, and Roy Edward Brown and Volunteer Realty Company of Knoxville, Inc.
03A01-9801-CH-00031
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick D. McDonald

On October 26, 1993, plaintiffs purchased an new residence in Oak Ridge from the defendants. Thereafter, the unfinished basement of the residence flooded on several occasions after heavy rainfall.

Knox County Court of Appeals 08/06/98
Anna Lee Crisp, v. Irville C. Boring and wife, Wanda Sue Boring
03A01-9711-CV-00527
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Dale Young

This is a boundary dispute. The plaintiff alleges that the location of the boundary line between her property and the adjoining land of the defendants is shown by a survey made by Sterling Engineering, Inc.

Blount County Court of Appeals 08/06/98
Wanda C. Tate, v. Sally Seivers and Carole Mitchell, L'Argent Inc., v., Wanda C. Tate
03A01-9710-CV-00459
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler A. Rosenbalm

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.

Court of Appeals 08/06/98