CHRISTINA ALTICE v. NATS, INC. ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 26, 2010)
Judgment creditor sued defendants to collect a judgment against a defunct nonprofit corporation, claiming defendants were the alter egos of the defunct corporation. In a prior appeal, this court instructed the parties to focus on whether certain transactions were or were not loans. If they were loans, then the plaintiff could not prove her case to make the defendants responsible for the judgment against the defunct corporation. The trial court found that the transactions were loans. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/alticec_022610.pdf
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Supreme Court Adopts Headquarters Test, Hampering Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs
High court defines 'headquarters' (February 23, 2010)
The U.S. Supreme Court may have made it more difficult for tort lawyers to bring lawsuits in plaintiff-friendly state courts with today's ruling that a company's principal place of business is typically its headquarters. The 9-0 ruling, authored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said a company should be considered a citizen of a state where its "nerve center" is located. The "nerve center" test will be used to establish diversity jurisdiction, allowing more lawsuits to be tried in federal rather than state courts.
Full story available at:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_adopts_headquarters_test_hampering_forum-shopping_plaintiffs/
The U.S. Supreme Court may have made it more difficult for tort lawyers to bring lawsuits in plaintiff-friendly state courts with today's ruling that a company's principal place of business is typically its headquarters. The 9-0 ruling, authored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said a company should be considered a citizen of a state where its "nerve center" is located. The "nerve center" test will be used to establish diversity jurisdiction, allowing more lawsuits to be tried in federal rather than state courts.
Full story available at:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_adopts_headquarters_test_hampering_forum-shopping_plaintiffs/
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Court reviews whether one party wrongfully dissociated from a partnership.
BEVERLY MORAN v. ELLIOT WILLENSKY (Tenn. Ct. App. February 3, 2010)
This case arises from a partnership gone bad. The trial court found that the Appellant wrongfully dissociated from the partnership. Pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 61-1-101 et seq., the trial court awarded Appellee project costs, and winding up costs, including attorney's fees. Appellant appeals. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/moranb_020310.pdf
This case arises from a partnership gone bad. The trial court found that the Appellant wrongfully dissociated from the partnership. Pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn. Code Ann. section 61-1-101 et seq., the trial court awarded Appellee project costs, and winding up costs, including attorney's fees. Appellant appeals. We affirm.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/moranb_020310.pdf
Court reviews whether greenhouses are real property or personal property for taxation purposes
HERMANN HOLTKAMP GREENHOUSES, INC. v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, JO ANN NORTH, Assessor of Property for Davidson County, and TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (Tenn. Ct. App. February 3, 2010)
This appeal concerns the classification of property for taxation purposes. The petitioner commercial business grows plants in large greenhouses erected on its land. The county assessor of property classified the greenhouses as real property, to be taxed as such. The petitioner taxpayer appealed the assessor's classification, contending that the greenhouses are personal property. An administrative law judge concluded that the greenhouses are personal property, taxed at a lower rate than real property. The assessor appealed to the state board of equalization. The state board of equalization reversed the ALJ's decision and concluded that the greenhouses are real property.
The petitioner taxpayer then filed a petition for judicial review of the state board's decision. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the greenhouses are real property and dismissed the taxpayer's petition. The petitioner taxpayer now appeals. Utilizing the common law of fixtures, we find that the greenhouses are properly classified as real property. Thus, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/holtkamph_020310.pdf
This appeal concerns the classification of property for taxation purposes. The petitioner commercial business grows plants in large greenhouses erected on its land. The county assessor of property classified the greenhouses as real property, to be taxed as such. The petitioner taxpayer appealed the assessor's classification, contending that the greenhouses are personal property. An administrative law judge concluded that the greenhouses are personal property, taxed at a lower rate than real property. The assessor appealed to the state board of equalization. The state board of equalization reversed the ALJ's decision and concluded that the greenhouses are real property.
The petitioner taxpayer then filed a petition for judicial review of the state board's decision. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the greenhouses are real property and dismissed the taxpayer's petition. The petitioner taxpayer now appeals. Utilizing the common law of fixtures, we find that the greenhouses are properly classified as real property. Thus, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/holtkamph_020310.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)