§28.1 Generally
1. Nairon v. Holland, 2007 WL 626953 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 1, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"Reginald Nairon brought this action against Horace Joel Holland and Holland Medical Equipment, Inc., claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy resulting from “harassing and abusive” telephone calls made to the plaintiff by Mr. Holland and others connected with him. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgement. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.
2. Crawford v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc., No. E2006-00987- COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves one of numerous civil lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh and his former business, Tri-State Crematory, Inc., and others. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and siblings of Robert H. Crawford, Jr., whose body was sent to the Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The body, however, was not cremated and to this day the plaintiffs do not know what happened to their loved ones’ body. The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit after finding that the decedent’s surviving spouse was the only person with standing to bring the various tort claims asserted by the plaintiffs.
The decedent’s sister, Teri Crawford, appeals that determination. We affirm." View opinion. View concurring / dissenting opinion.
2. Akers v. Bucknew-Rush Funeral Enterprises, Inc., No. E2006-01513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2007).
"This is an appeal from three consolidated lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh, Marsh’s former business, Tri-State Crematory, and Buckner-Rush Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs are relatives and a girlfriend of three deceased individuals whose bodies were sent by Buckner-Rush Funeral Home to Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The bodies were not cremated and either were dumped or buried by Marsh on the Tri-State premises. The Trial Court dismissed all three lawsuits after holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring any of the tort, contract, or statutory claims at issue. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View opinion. View concurring / dissenting opinion.
3. 1. Bogdan Rentea v. Ben M. Rose, C. Bennett Harrison, Jr. and Cornelius & Collins, LLP, M2006-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal of summary judgment in a lawsuit that arose from a heated discovery dispute. Plaintiff-attorney appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on claims of abuse of process, fraudulent concealment, and outrageous conduct against the attorneys and law firm representing the plaintiff-attorney’s former corporate client in a separate lawsuit. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. View opinion.
4. Downs v. Bush, M2005-01498-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"We granted the plaintiff’s application for permission to appeal in this wrongful death case to determine whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to each of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Although the parties have raised several issues in this appeal, the central issue is the nature of the legal duty, if any, owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent. The decedent was socializing and consuming alcohol with the defendants. While riding in a four-door pick-up truck with the defendants, he became ill. The defendants stopped the truck on the side of an interstate highway so the decedent could vomit. After resuming the trip, the decedent rode in the bed of the truck and, for reasons unknown, exited it. After exiting the truck, he was struck by two vehicles and subsequently died. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants placed the decedent in the bed of the truck. Similarly, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the decedent was helpless and whether the defendants took charge of him. Lastly, we hold that none of the defendants stood in any special relationship with the plaintiff’s decedent and consequently they did not assume any affirmative duty to aid or protect him. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings." (See fn. 8 for a discussion of the outrageous conduct claim.) View opinion. View concurring and dissenting opinion.
5. O'Dell v. O'Dell, E2007-02619-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Jackson O’Dell, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) sued Jackson C. O’Dell, III and Calvin David O’Dell (“Defendants”) alleging civil conspiracy and outrageous conduct. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for civil conspiracy and outrageous conduct, but hold that Plaintiff did state a claim for alleged violations of the Tennessee Limited Liability Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-201-101 et seq." View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"Reginald Nairon brought this action against Horace Joel Holland and Holland Medical Equipment, Inc., claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy resulting from “harassing and abusive” telephone calls made to the plaintiff by Mr. Holland and others connected with him. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgement. The plaintiff appeals. We vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings." View opinion.
2. Crawford v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc., No. E2006-00987- COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This appeal involves one of numerous civil lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh and his former business, Tri-State Crematory, Inc., and others. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and siblings of Robert H. Crawford, Jr., whose body was sent to the Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The body, however, was not cremated and to this day the plaintiffs do not know what happened to their loved ones’ body. The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit after finding that the decedent’s surviving spouse was the only person with standing to bring the various tort claims asserted by the plaintiffs.
The decedent’s sister, Teri Crawford, appeals that determination. We affirm." View opinion. View concurring / dissenting opinion.
2. Akers v. Bucknew-Rush Funeral Enterprises, Inc., No. E2006-01513-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2007).
"This is an appeal from three consolidated lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh, Marsh’s former business, Tri-State Crematory, and Buckner-Rush Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs are relatives and a girlfriend of three deceased individuals whose bodies were sent by Buckner-Rush Funeral Home to Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The bodies were not cremated and either were dumped or buried by Marsh on the Tri-State premises. The Trial Court dismissed all three lawsuits after holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring any of the tort, contract, or statutory claims at issue. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View opinion. View concurring / dissenting opinion.
3. 1. Bogdan Rentea v. Ben M. Rose, C. Bennett Harrison, Jr. and Cornelius & Collins, LLP, M2006-02076-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an appeal of summary judgment in a lawsuit that arose from a heated discovery dispute. Plaintiff-attorney appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on claims of abuse of process, fraudulent concealment, and outrageous conduct against the attorneys and law firm representing the plaintiff-attorney’s former corporate client in a separate lawsuit. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. View opinion.
4. Downs v. Bush, M2005-01498-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Sept. 10, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"We granted the plaintiff’s application for permission to appeal in this wrongful death case to determine whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to each of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Although the parties have raised several issues in this appeal, the central issue is the nature of the legal duty, if any, owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent. The decedent was socializing and consuming alcohol with the defendants. While riding in a four-door pick-up truck with the defendants, he became ill. The defendants stopped the truck on the side of an interstate highway so the decedent could vomit. After resuming the trip, the decedent rode in the bed of the truck and, for reasons unknown, exited it. After exiting the truck, he was struck by two vehicles and subsequently died. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants placed the decedent in the bed of the truck. Similarly, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the decedent was helpless and whether the defendants took charge of him. Lastly, we hold that none of the defendants stood in any special relationship with the plaintiff’s decedent and consequently they did not assume any affirmative duty to aid or protect him. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings." (See fn. 8 for a discussion of the outrageous conduct claim.) View opinion. View concurring and dissenting opinion.
5. O'Dell v. O'Dell, E2007-02619-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"Jackson O’Dell, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) sued Jackson C. O’Dell, III and Calvin David O’Dell (“Defendants”) alleging civil conspiracy and outrageous conduct. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for civil conspiracy and outrageous conduct, but hold that Plaintiff did state a claim for alleged violations of the Tennessee Limited Liability Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-201-101 et seq." View opinion.