Legal Opinion

Beaman Pontiac v. Gill

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided April 28, 2000No. M1999-00666-COA-R3-CVPublished

1Opinion of the Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE BEAMAN PONTIAC COMPANY v. ROY B. GILL Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 98C-2494, Carol Soloman, Judge No. M1999-00666-COA-R3-CV - Decided April 28, 2000 Defendant who entered into an agreement to settle directly appeals the trial court’s grant of Plaintiff’s motion to enforce said agreement. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Plaintiff followed improper procedure to enforce the settlement and that the agreement is invalid. Under the authorities cited below and for the following reasons, we find, in the absence…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Teitelbaum Holdings, Ltd. v. GoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
  3. Mullins v. ParkeyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1992
  4. Starchman v. Bill Stoffle Ford, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API