Holloway v. Collier, Jr.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Holloway v. Collier, Jr.

DecidedNovember 14, 1997

Docket01A01-9704-CV-00153

StatusPublished

This text of Holloway v. Collier, Jr. (Holloway v. Collier, Jr.) 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.

Bluebook

Holloway v. Collier, Jr., (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

RICK HOLLOWAY, ) ) FILED Plaintiff/Appellee, ) November 14, 1997 ) Maury Circuit ) No. 7188 Cecil W. Crowson VS. ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9704-CV-00153 JOHN R. COLLIER, JR., ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s opinion on the ground that Mr. Holloway’s circumstantial evidence concerning Mr. Collier’s actions does not amount to material evidence sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Mr. Collier acted intentionally and without justification. Proof of this sort of motivation is an essential element of a claim for interference with an employment relationship, see Forrester v. Stockstill, 869 S.W.2d 328, 331 (Tenn. 1994), and without it Mr. Holloway’s case should never have gone to the jury.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

RICK HOLLOWAY, ) ) FILED Plaintiff/Appellee, ) November 14, 1997 ) Maury Circuit ) No. 7188 Cecil W. Crowson VS. ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9704-CV-00153 JOHN R. COLLIER, JR., ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s opinion on the ground that Mr. Holloway’s circumstantial evidence concerning Mr. Collier’s actions does not amount to material evidence sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that Mr. Collier acted intentionally and without justification. Proof of this sort of motivation is an essential element of a claim for interference with an employment relationship, see Forrester v. Stockstill, 869 S.W.2d 328, 331 (Tenn. 1994), and without it Mr. Holloway’s case should never have gone to the jury.

_____________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Holloway v. Collier, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-collier-jr-tennctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack