NIPPONKOA INS. CO. V. OZARK MOTOR LINES, INC., CASE NO. 3:06CV0447 , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION, 2006 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 74440
The Court granted the firm's client's motion to file a third party complaint to bring in other responsible parties.read more »
WATSON V. PILOT LIFE INS. CO., 741 S.W.2D 342 (TENN. CT. APP 1987), CERT. DENIED 1987.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed a decision from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, granting summary judgment to defendants and denying plaintiff death benefits under her deceased husband's group life insurance policy issued by defendants.
TATA V. NICHOLS, 848 S.W.2D 649 (TENN. 1993)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, injured claimant, challenged the decision from the court of appeals (Tennessee), which affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, vehicle owners and their insurers. The appellate court held that the claimant, who was helping two of the owners with car trouble when an uninsured vehicle rear-ended one of the vehicles, was not an insured within the meaning of the uninsured motorist provision of the owners' policies.
BRANNON V. NOVEL, 1995 TENN. APP. LEXIS 829
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant buyers sought review of the judgment of the Chancery Court of Shelby County at Memphis (Tennessee), which found in favor of appellee sellers in a breach of contract action involving the sale of real property. After the buyers failed to close on the property, the sellers initiated an action seeking money damages. The buyers counterclaimed alleging fraud, violation of Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act and/or negligent misrepresentation.
WEBER VS MOSES, 938 S.W. 2D 387 (TENN 1996)
The Court of Appeals (Tennessee) affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff employee's discriminatory practice and retaliatory discharge claims brought under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-301, 50-1-304 of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The court of appeals held that the action was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The employee ...
EDWARDS V. WITCO CHEM. CORP., 1998 TENN. LEXIS 206
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant employer challenged the decision of the Shelby County Circuit Court (Tennessee) that set plaintiff employee's disability rating in his workers' compensation claim.
JERRY NELMS V. WALGREEN, C.A. NO. 02A01-9805-CV-00137; COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION, AT JACKSON; 1999 TENN. APP. LEXIS 437
The Appellate court determined that punitive damages were not warranted.
WITCO CORP. V. OIL, CHEM. & ATOMIC WORKERS INT'L UNION, 1999 U.S. APP. LEXIS 17986
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, a labor union acting on behalf of a fired employee, appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, that vacated an arbitrator's award directing appellee employer to reinstate the employee.
GRAHAM-HUMPHREYS V. MEMPHIS BROOKS MUSEUM OF ART, INC., 209 F.3D 552 (6TH CIRCUIT 2000)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed summary dismissal of her gender-based employment discrimination complaint under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at ...
COLEMAN V. SHONEY'S, INC., 145 F. SUPP. 2D 934 (W. DIST TENN. 2001)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employees brought an action against defendant employer and alleged that the employer discriminated against them on the basis of their race and sex. The court granted the employees' motion to voluntarily dismiss the state law claim that they had included in their amended complaint and considered the employees' motion to again amend their complaint to assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 et ...
TRUMBO, INC. V. WITCO CORP., 2003 TENN. APP. LEXIS 572
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Circuit Court for Shelby County (Tennessee) granted summary judgment in favor of appellee employer and against appellant, a third-party tortfeasor (tortfeasor), in the latter's suit for spoliation and negligence. The tortfeasor appealed.
MEDRANO V. MCDR, INC., 366 F. SUPP. 2D 625 (US DIST. CT., WESTERN 2005)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, administratrix and an employee, sued defendants, general contractor and company, and alleged that they unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of their race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq. The general contractor and the company moved to ...