Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting

DecidedApril 29, 2009

DocketM2008-01736-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting (Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting) 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

Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 7, 2009 Session

RICHARD L. HUBBELL v. SUMNER ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2008C-87 Tom E. Gray, Chancellor

No. M2008-01736-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 29, 2009

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J.,M.S., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the majority and would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the corporation. I agree with the majority’s exposition of relevant legal principles. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that Mr. Hubbell provided any evidence regarding the value of his shares in SAA.

The corporation provided evidence, including expert testimony, as to a specific value of Mr. Hubbell’s shares. Rather than presenting evidence of a different value, Mr. Hubbell gave his own opinion as to the deficiencies in SAA’s evidence. His opinion did not create a dispute as to any fact. At most, he challenged the methodology used by SAA or its expert to calculate the value. This could be construed as a challenge to SAA’s expert or an argument the case law regarding valuation methods was not followed. Neither is a fact or evidence of a fact.

__________________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J., M.S.

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 7, 2009 Session

RICHARD L. HUBBELL v. SUMNER ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2008C-87 Tom E. Gray, Chancellor

No. M2008-01736-COA-R3-CV - Filed April 29, 2009

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J.,M.S., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the majority and would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the corporation. I agree with the majority’s exposition of relevant legal principles. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that Mr. Hubbell provided any evidence regarding the value of his shares in SAA.

The corporation provided evidence, including expert testimony, as to a specific value of Mr. Hubbell’s shares. Rather than presenting evidence of a different value, Mr. Hubbell gave his own opinion as to the deficiencies in SAA’s evidence. His opinion did not create a dispute as to any fact. At most, he challenged the methodology used by SAA or its expert to calculate the value. This could be construed as a challenge to SAA’s expert or an argument the case law regarding valuation methods was not followed. Neither is a fact or evidence of a fact.

__________________________________________ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J., M.S.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richard L. Hubbell v. Sumner Anesthesia Associates, Inc. - Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-l-hubbell-v-sumner-anesthesia-associates-i-tennctapp-2009.