METRO CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC v. SIM ATTRACTIONS, LLC, ET AL., No. W2008-01812-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2009).
N/A
OUTCOME: Reversed trial court's judgment for Plaintiff Metro Construction Co, LLC on holding that Fitraco's security interest had priority over Metro Construction's mechanic's lien interest.
Land use and zoning
OUTDOOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. v. William H. THOMAS, Jr., No., W2006-01464-COA-R3-CV, 249 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
N/A
OUTCOME: Affirmed trial court's finding of contempt and award of attorneys' fees.
Land use and zoning
KARDOUSH, LLC v. CITY OF MEMPHIS ALCOHOL COMMISSION, No. W2005-00104-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. November 9, 2005).
N/A
OUTCOME: Affirmed trial court's reversal (on writ of certiorari) of decision of Memphis Alcohol Commission.
Transportation
Bus Company Found Not Responsible
N/A
OUTCOME: Defense verdict (take nothing judgment)
On Friday, June 28, 2013, at 11:30 p.m., after five (5) days of trial, a jury in the Circuit Court of Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee rendered a defense verdict (take nothing judgment) in favor of a... national bus company. Lee Piovarcy and Lew Wardlaw of the Martin Tate Firm in Memphis tried the case to verdict. The case went to the jury on both compensatory and punitive damages. The causes of action alleged against the bus company and the security guard were False Arrest; False Imprisonment; Assault and Battery; False Light and Section 1983 Violations of Constitutional Rights.
The relevant facts involve a 68 year old woman, who weighed less than 100 pounds who was handcuffed by a 280 pound private security guard in the terminal. The woman was asking for her luggage which did not arrive with her on her bus. She was in Memphis to attend a relative’s funeral and for a family reunion. There were allegations that employees of the bus company assisted the security guard when he arrested the lady for disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. The bus company employee allegedly assisted in handcuffing the woman and detaining her until Memphis Police Officers arrived. The Defendant security guard was found guilty of assault and battery and minimal compensatory
Transportation
Motor Carrier Awarded Damages and Pre-Judgment Interest
N/A
OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of motor carrier for $815,670.58.
In an unusual turn of events, a major motor carrier was recently awarded a sizable judgment by a Tennessee jury. Lee Piovarcy and Lew Wardlaw of the Martin Tate firm in Memphis tried the case to verdi...ct. On July 24, 2013, after a trial in the Circuit Court of Gibson County, a jury awarded $685,549.60 in damages to one of the nation’s largest fuel tanker carriers. On post-trial motions, the trial judge awarded $6,724.00 in discretionary costs and $123,396.98 in pre-judgment interest.
The relevant facts involve a June 15, 2006 accident that occurred on Scenic Route 54 in Gibson County, Tennessee. A large tractor pulling a bush hog mower was making a left turn into a driveway when it turned into the drive tires of a tractor-trailer loaded with almost 9,000 gallons of gasoline. Despite the decades of experience of the truck driver, the tanker truck flipped onto its side, spilling its load of fuel. The mower company claimed that the tanker struck the mower while passing on a two lane road. While the truck driver’s injuries were handled in a separate action, the jury found the mower company 100% liable for the total loss of the tractor-trailer and for the extensive environmental remediation undertaken by the carrier. The total judgment in favor of the motor carrier was for $815,670.58.
Business
Jury awards family business damages on contract implied-in-fact.
N/A
OUTCOME: Jury verdict for client
On November 6, 2015, after a three day trial in the Circuit Court of Wilson County Tennessee, a jury awarded $136,865 in damages to our client, a family owned business from Pennsylvania. The relevant f...acts involve a contract implied-in-fact between the family business and a large national restaurant chain. The proof at trial was that the course of conduct of the parties showed mutual assent to a contract implied-in-fact requiring the restaurant chain to purchase a significant portion of the remaining available inventory after the parties ceased doing business under an express supply contract.