Cobb v. Beier, S/C No. 03S01-9610-Cv-00106 (Supreme Court At
This text of Cobb v. Beier, S/C No. 03S01-9610-Cv-00106 (Supreme Court At (Cobb v. Beier, S/C No. 03S01-9610-Cv-00106 (Supreme Court At) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
JENKINS DENTAL ARTS, INC. ) C/A NO. 03A01-9606-CV-00184 ) BRADLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ) v. )
ACE CODENT, ZAHN DENTAL COMPANY, ) ) ) FILED INC., and HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ) ) June 9, 1997 Defendants, ) ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. ) Appellate C ourt Clerk and ) ) ) ACECODENT INCORPORATED ) ) HONORABLE EARLE G. MURPHY, Defendant-Appellee. ) JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 23, 1996, we filed our opinion in this
case. The Supreme Court granted the appellant’s application for
permission to appeal and remanded this matter to us by order
entered May 5, 1997. We were directed by that court to
reconsider this case in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in
Cobb v. Beier, S/C No. 03S01-9610-CV-00106 (Supreme Court at
Knoxville, April 28, 1997).
In view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cobb, we
find and hold that the motion of Acecodent Incorporated to
dismiss this appeal because of the failure of the appellant to
serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the clerk of this court
is not well taken and it is accordingly DENIED. To the extent
our earlier opinion, and the judgment filed pursuant to it, find
and hold otherwise, they are, to that extent, vacated and held
for naught.
We adhere to the remainder of our earlier opinion,
which held that the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant’s complaint. Therefore, we now hold, pursuant to Rule
36, T.R.A.P., that the judgment of the trial court in this case
is erroneous, and hereby vacate same and remand this case to the
trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
order.
Our earlier opinion and judgment as to the costs on
appeal are also vacated and held for naught. We re-tax the costs
on appeal to the appellee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
__________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
__________________________ Houston M. Goddard, J.
__________________________ Don T. McMurray, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cobb v. Beier, S/C No. 03S01-9610-Cv-00106 (Supreme Court At, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-beier-sc-no-03s01-9610-cv-00106-supreme-cou-tennctapp-1996.