Ricky Lee Oldham v. Tennessee Department of Correction
This appeal involves a dispute between an inmate and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“Department”) regarding deductions from the inmate’s trust account to pay the court costs stemming from his criminal conviction. After his inmate grievance proved unsuccessful, the inmate filed a petition for a declaratory order in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration that the Department could not deduct funds from his inmate trust account without a court order. The trial court dismissed the inmate’s petition because it did not state that the inmate had previously sought a declaratory order from the Department. The inmate asserts on this appeal that he should be excused from this requirement because he is undertaking to represent himself and because his grievance was tantamount to a petition for a declaratory order. We affirm the dismissal of the inmate’s complaint in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1 |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Whitaker vs. Whirlpool, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
M1999-00228-OCA-R3-CV
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
McKinney vs. Jarvis
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Nashville Clubhouse Inn, et al vs. Johnson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State Auto Ins. Co. vs. Bishop
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Jackson vs. Futrell
|
Stewart | Court of Appeals | |
Ward vs. TN Bd. of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ahmad Ben Nama and Kahled Abed v. Aymanayoub, d/b/a Limited Auto Sales - Concurring
This is an appeal from the chancellor’s denial of Defendant’s motion to alter or amend findings of fact. The question to be answered is whether the “newly discovered evidence rule” would allow the presentation post-trial of evidence which the proponent concedes he could have produced at trial. The defendant contends that evidence which tends to show misrepresentation on the part of a nonmovant should be allowed under a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52, 59 and 60 regardless of whether it was discoverable at trial. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we cannot agree. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Graham Hartman, Kay Hartman, his mother and duly qualified conservator and guardian, and Cleon Hartman, v. The University of Tennessee and State of Tennessee
For the second time, the claimants appeal a decision of the Tennessee Claims Commission deny ing them recovery from the University of Tennessee and the State of Tennessee of $1,026,666 in medical expenses allegedly paid by BellSouth Corporation under an ERISA plan with BellSouth alleged to be subrogee of such pay ments. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-1529-COA-R3-CV
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frankie Pauline Maples vs. Frank Allen Maples
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald Stephen Satterfield, vs. Gary Long and Richard M. Smith
|
Court of Appeals | ||
David Frounfelker v. Identity Group, Inc.
|
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-00590-COA-RC-CV
|
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-01782-C0A-R3-CV
|
Court of Appeals | ||
E1999-00686-COA-R7-CV
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Vera Elizabeth Thomas vs. Kenneth Lamar Thomas
In this divorce action, the husband appealed from the award of alimony |
Court of Appeals | ||
Vera Elizabeth Thomas vs. Kenneth Lamar Thomas
|
Court of Appeals | ||
E1999-01346-C0A-R3-CV
|
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Francis Ione Lethcoe, et al vs. Ricky Ray Holden, et ux , et al
|
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-00332-C0A-R3-CV
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Karon Spicer vs. James Spicer
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Ruth Willis vs. University Health System
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Pike vs. John Maher Builders, Inc.
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals |