Chrisman v. Hill Home Development
This text of Chrisman v. Hill Home Development (Chrisman v. Hill Home Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED JAMES AND CAROLYN CHRISMAN ) Appeal October 26, 1998 ) No. 03-S-01-9706-CV-00077 Plaintiffs-Appellees ) Cecil W. Crowson ) Appellate Court Clerk v. ) Knox County ) No. 1-787-94 HILL HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC. ) and JIM HILL ) ) Judgment of the Court of Defendants-Appellants ) Appeals is REVERSED
JUDGMENT ORDER
This cause came to be heard upon briefs, argument of
counsel, and the record on appeal from the Court of Appeals.
The Court is of the opinion that under the facts of this
case, summary judgment is appropriate for the claim of fraudulent
concealment against Hill because Hill demonstrated that plaintiffs
will be unable to prove an essential element of the tort. We are
also of the opinion that summary judgment is appropriate for the
claim of nuisance against Hill and Hill Home Development because
the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 bars
that claim. In accordance with the opinion filed herewith, it is
therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of
the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellees, for
which execution may issue if necessary.
10/26/98
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chrisman v. Hill Home Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrisman-v-hill-home-development-tenn-1998.