Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
ยง

Ching-Ming Chen v. Advantage Co., Inc.

713 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Ching-Ming Chen v. Advantage Co., Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (In re Jackson Masonry, LLC)

    906 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2018)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the finality of orders in bankruptcy

    Under Tennessee law, a plaintiff cannot recover for breach of contract unless they themselves were able to perform.Margrave v. Channabassappa , No. 87-159-II, 1987 WL 19444, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 1987) (citing Ching-Ming Chen v. Advantage Co. , 713 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) ); see also 10 Corbin on Contracts ยง 54.20 (2017). Ritzen asserts that this rule only applies to plaintiffs seeking monetary damages.

  2. In re Kennedy

    Case No. 03-32764 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2004)

    Once the Debtor effectuated his anticipatory repudiation, Mrs. Kennedy was no longer under a duty to perform; however, "in order to maintain an action for damages, [she] must at least show a readiness to perform." Chen v. Advantage Co., Inc., 713 S.W.2d 79, 81 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986). It appears that the Debtor breached the Contracts in February 2003, when he called Ms.Bradshaw withElite Realty and requested cancellation of the Contracts.

  3. Nelson v. Loring E. Justice

    No. E2017-00895-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019)   Cited 12 times
    In Nelson v. Justice, No. E2017-00895-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 337040, at *27 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019) 1 ("Nelson I"), overruled on other grounds by In re Mattie L., 618 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2021), the father, Loring Justice ("Father"), appealed the trial court's judgment, which, inter alia, restricted the co-parenting time of Father with the parties' minor child ("the Child") and awarded the mother, Kim Nelson ("Mother"), her attorney's fees incurred during the proceedings below.

    It is within the sound discretion and duty of a judge to clear up any confusion in the testimony or facts of a case. See Ching-Ming Chen v. Advantage Co., Inc., 713 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). The record reflects that Judge Ash did question some of Father's witnesses. For instance, he questioned Dr. Brown regarding the nature of her individual therapy sessions with Father and the recommendations she made to him during these sessions.

  4. ASHE v. McDONALD

    No. E2000-03151-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2002)   Cited 2 times

    Bond Brothers v. Spence, 279 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tenn.); Ching-Ming Chen v. Advantage Co., Inc., 713 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1986); Loeffler v. Kjellgren, 884 S.W.2d 463, 474 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1994). While a judge may have a duty to ask clarifying questions, the Court must exercise prudence, and remarks made before a jury should be cautious and circumspect.