Court reviews a case involving battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and business-related claims

SARAH HURST v. COLMAN S. HOCHMAN, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 14, 2012)

Sarah Hurst ("Hurst") sued Colman S. Hochman ("Hochman") and Hochman Family Partners, L.P. ("the Partnership") alleging that Hochman had committed a battery upon her, and seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things.

After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Decree that, inter alia, awarded Hurst damages of $2,500 against Hochman for battery; denied Hurst's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and punitive damages; and dismissed Hurst's claims against the Partnership. Hurst appeals raising issues regarding whether the Trial Court erred in denying her claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and in dismissing her claims against the Partnership. We affirm.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/hursts_121412.pdf