Mobirise

RESULTS & PRECEDENCE

Helping create and develop the law in the State of Tennessee

Since 1996, the attorneys at Snider & Horner have produced results and helped create and develop the law in the State of Tennessee by assisting in the drafting and subsequent passage of new legislation; creating new legal precedence; and obtaining settlements, judgments and verdicts for millions of dollars.

In regard to assisting with new legislation, Attorney Snider was instrumental in the drafting and subsequent passage of the 2003 amendments to the Tennessee Lemon Law which made it easier for consumers to make lemon law claims. MORE DETAILS HERE.

In regard to creating new legal precedent, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted Mr. Snider’s argument on remedies available in consumer fraud cases in the landmark case of Beverly Miller et. al. vs. United Automax. MORE DETAILS HERE.

In regard to obtaining settlements, judgments and verdicts, the attorneys of Snider & Horner have obtained millions of dollars on behalf of their clients through thousands of settlements and trials. For example:

  • In an identity theft matter, our firm represented the Plaintiffs in the case of Jim & Sherry Raines vs. Lashandra Moore in Shelby County Chancery Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the Defendant for $1,054,500.00.

  • In a slip and fall injury matter, our firm represented the Plaintiffs in the case of Leonard Draper et. al. vs. Chow Time #1, LLC in Shelby County Circuit Court. After lengthy litigation, our attorneys obtained a confidential settlement.

  • In a commercial business dispute matter, our firm represented the Plaintiffs in the case of TOGA, LLC et. al. vs. Benjamin Johnson in Shelby County Circuit Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the Defendant for $709,750.00.

  • In a multi-million-dollar civil defense matter, our firm represented one of the Defendants in the case of Bancorpsouth Bank vs. Justin Hertin et. al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. At trial, our attorneys obtained a defense verdict for our client.

  • In a serious automobile accident matter, our firm represented the Plaintiff in the case of Matthew Wilson vs. Earl Wright in Fayette County Circuit Court. After lengthy litigation and on the eve of trial, our attorneys obtained a confidential settlement.

  • In a small landlord and tenant collection matter, our firm represented the landlord in the case of K&M International, Inc. vs. Melissa Harwell in Shelby County General Sessions Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the Defendant for possession of the property plus $36,000.00.

  • In a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act case, our firm represented the Plaintiff in the case of Shonda Mickel vs. Eric & Willene Cross in Madison County Circuit Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the Defendants in the amount of $248,000.00.

  • In a fraud case, our firm represented the Plaintiff in the case of Tricia Rankin-Owens vs. Nancy Connor Smith in Shelby County Chancery Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $395,000.00.

  • In a small automobile accident case, our firm represented the Plaintiff in the case of Frederick Flenorl vs. Dobbs Ford, Inc. et. al. in Shelby County Chancery Court. At trial, our attorneys obtained a jury verdict against the Defendant in the amount of $35,000.00.

  • In an insurance dispute, our firm represented the Plaintiff in the case of Elizabeth Mackey et. al. vs. The Hartford et. al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After lengthy litigation, our attorneys obtained a confidential settlement.

DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients’ cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case as every case is unique, the results will vary based on the facts of an individual case, and that no results can be guaranteed.