Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill

4 Citing cases

  1. Metropolitan Devel. Housing Agcy. v. Hill

    518 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 19 times

    Said respondent has appealed. A previous non-jury judgment in this cause reached this Court by appeal, resulting in a reversal and remand for retrial. The opinion in said appeal is reported as The Nashville Housing Authority v. Horace G. Hill et al., Tenn. App., 497 S.W.2d 917 (1973). The respondents, Hill and Bank, Trustees, have moved to dismiss the present appeal of Southern Finishers, Inc., on the ground that the rights of Southern Finishers, Inc., were fully adjudicated upon the former appeal.

  2. State ex Rel. Smith v. Overstreet

    533 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. 1976)   Cited 3 times
    In Overstreet, the property owner was denied recovery of moving expenses to his new location since he opted to sell his lumber supply on site rather than to move it to that new location.

    The Court accordingly held that the claim for the estimated expenses in moving this machinery was not embraced within the statute and was properly disallowed by the trial court. In the case of Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill, 497 S.W.2d 917 (1972), the Court of Appeals did allow expenses of dismantling and removing machinery and other incidental moving expenses in connection with the condemnation of a manufacturing plant, where the lessee had in fact incurred the expenses and had proven the amount thereof. In the case of Memphis Housing Authority v. Memphis Steam Laundry-Cleaners, Inc., 225 Tenn. 46, 463 S.W.2d 677 (1971), this Court construed the provisions of T.C.A. § 23-1414 and held that costs of moving fixtures and equipment in connection with the condemnation of a large commercial laundry were recoverable, and that it was not necessary that entry of judgment be deferred until possession of the property had been turned over to the state and the amount of the moving expenses had actually been incurred and ascertained.

  3. Shelby County v. Barden

    527 S.W.2d 124 (Tenn. 1975)   Cited 61 times

    See Annot., 1 A.L.R.2d 878 (1948); 3 A.L.R.2d 286, 302 (1949). See also Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill, 497 S.W.2d 917 (Tenn. App. 1972). Apparently the trial judge applied the rule which obtains in housing authority and some other direct condemnation proceedings to the effect that a condemnor may not acquire personal property under eminent domain, and that the property owner can recover only items of moving expense in connection with personalty.

  4. State ex rel. Commissioner, Department of Transportation v. Teasley

    913 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a tenant would be entitled to compensation for value of leasehold when leased property is acquired by eminent domain

    Neither trade fixtures nor any other type of personal property are compensable in eminent domain. This court, in Nashville Housing Authority v. Hill, 497 S.W.2d 917 (Tenn. App. 1972), at 926, said: "A tenant is not entitled to be compensated for trade fixtures which are a part of the realty even though he placed them thereon." (Citing 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 175(2).