COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

John Wolfe vs. First American Corp.
02A01-9510-CV-00212
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

Bobbie & Willie Byrd vs. First Tennessee Bank
02A01-9610-CV-00252

State Farm Ins. vs. Gill
01A01-9701-CV-00010
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb

Turtle Creek Apts. vs. Polk
01A01-9608-CV-00382
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Dillon vs. State
01A01-9701-BC-00020

Robins vs. Flagship Airlines, Inc. & AMR Corp
01A01-9612-CV-00550
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

The City of White House vs. Whitley, et. al.
01A01-9612-CH-00571
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

The City of White House vs. Whitley, et. al.
01A01-9612-CH-00571

Hunter vs. Anderson
01A01-9701-CV-00024
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Ruff vs. Traughber
01A01-9702-CH-00074
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Tomlinson vs. Traughber
01A01-9703-CH-00143
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Flowers vs. Metro Baptist Schools
01A01-9705-CH-00219
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Gates, Duncan & Vancamp Co., et al vs. Richard Levantino
02A01-9605-CH-00095

Marles Flowers vs. Memphis Housing Authority
02A01-9610-CV-00240
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler

Susan Turner v. Jeffrey Purvis
M2002-00023-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Michael R. Jones
Mother appeals from a trial court modification of the custody and visitation arrangement which had been in place since the divorce in 1997. The previous arrangement gave Mother primary residential custody, and Father was to have liberal visitation as agreed upon by the parties. After declining to adopt the parenting plan submitted by either Mother or Father, the trial court devised a plan establishing a specific residential schedule. Mother argues that there was not a material change of circumstances that warranted the trial court's decision. Because we determine that a material change in circumstances occurred and because the modification of the custody arrangement was in the best interests of the children, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Henderson vs. Harlan, d/b/a: Lodge Quarters
01A01-9610-CV-00463
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Jammi vs. Conley
01A01-9609-CH-00425
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Bain vs. City of Murfreesboro
01A01-9611-CV-00510
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

Wood vs. Prosser, et. al.
01A01-9510-CV-00468
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley

Aghili vs. Saadatnejadi
01A01-9605-CV-00214
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Than Those Articulated By The Majority. The Majority Relies Upon State v. Marshall,
03C01-9602-CC-00066
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

Glenda Whisenhunt vs. Gordon Whisenhunt
02A01-9506-CV-00126
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

David Dunnehew vs. Donna Dunnehew
02A01-9604-CH-00079

Pacific Properties, v. Home Federal Bank of Tennessee, v. Michael S. Stalcup
03A01-9701-CV-00020
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Holt, Jr.

This action for conversion was submitted to a jury which returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, thereby implicitly finding that the fact-driven principal defense of the Statute of Limitations was not well-taken. Home Federal appeals and presents for review issues which, as paraphrased, question the propriety of the submission of the case to the jury, whether the defense of Statute of Limitations was well-taken, as a matter of law, whether requested jury instructions should have been given and whether the drawer of a check adequately instructed the drawee Bank as to its disposition. Pacific Properties