Legal Opinion

William B. Tanner Co., Inc. v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided July 1, 1974PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARNEY, Presiding Judge.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DIMINUTION OF THE RECORD

The plaintiff, William B. Tanner Company, Inc., has filed a motion suggesting diminution of the record along with a stenographic copy of the argument and remarks of counsel and comments of the Chancellor upon the trial below and has requested that such stenographic copy be made part of the record in this Court. This motion is not well-taken and must be denied. Statements of counsel and of the trial judge or chancellor as well as special instructions to the jury are not part of the technical record unless contained in a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. BerryTennessee Supreme Court · 1966
  2. De Long Corporation v. Joseph E. LucasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
  3. De Long Corporation v. LucasDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
  4. Arkansas Dailies, Inc. v. DanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1953
  5. Cohen v. CookCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1969

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Silk Plants, Etc. Franchise Systems, Inc. v. RegisterDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1989
  2. Bloom v. General Electric Supply Co.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1988
  3. Total Car Franchising Corp. v. L & S Paint Works, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1997
  4. McElwee v. WhartonDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API