Hollis vs. Hollis
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Culp vs. J.B. Hinson & Pevahouse
|
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Carson vs. Agri-Products Special Markets
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Sherrell vs. Sherrell
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Sanders, et. ux. vs. Mansfield, et. al.
|
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Child Support Svcs. vs. Russell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
West vs. Dept. of Correction, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Little, et. al. vs. Hogan, et. al.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Karr vs. Gibson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mildred Daniel vs. James Daniel
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Martin vs. Union Planters
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
McGlothlin vs. Bristol
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Knoll vs. Knoll
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Worley vs. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Stephens vs. Revco
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Cheri Owens Tuncay v. Engin Halif Tuncay - Concurring
This is a divorce case. Plaintiff-appellant Cheri Owens Tuncay was granted a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Mrs. Tuncay appeals the trial court’s division of the marital debts as well as the court’s failure to award her alimony beyond $5,000 in attorney fees. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Neil Pierce, v. Branda Ann Radford Pierce
This is a divorce case. On appeal, Brenda Pierce (wife) raises the issues of whether the tril court erred by refusing to grant her periodic alimony, by failing to grant her the divorce, and by failing to grant her discretionary costs and attorney's fees. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Stephen Roseberry, v. Janis Roseberry
In this divorce action, the appellant (husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court questioning the amount of child support he was ordered to pay, the division of marital property and alimony, including the amount, nature, and duration. The appellee (wife) seeks attorney fees for this appeal. No issue is presented relating to the granting of the divorce. We note that at the time of the trial, the husbanc had more than enough life insurance in force to satisfy this requirement.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Citizens For Collierville, Inc., A Tennessee Corporation, v. Town of Collierville, et al.
Plaintiff/Appellant, Citizens for Collierville (“CFC”) appeals from the order of the 2 Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, which declared valid the decision of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the Town of Collierville approving of Resolution 96-35 with respect to the application of Baptist Memorial Hospital (“BMH”) for a planned development pursuant to the Town of Collierville’s zoning ordinance. For reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gina Franklin et al., v. Allied Signal, Inc.
This appeal involves a suit filed by plaintiffs, Gina (“Mrs. Franklin”) and Barnee Franklin (“the Franklins”), against defendant, Allied Signal, Inc. (“Allied”), for personal injuries sustained when Mrs. Franklin tripped and fell on Allied’s premises on a metal loading ramp which protruded above the dock floor by one to two inches. The trial court granted Allied’s motion for summary judgment. The Franklins appeal and pose the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court committed error in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) whether the “open and obvious rule” bars plaintiff’s recovery or is only a factor to be considered in assessing comparative negligence. For reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Homebound Medical Care of Southeast Tennessee, Inc., v. Hospital Staffing Services of Tennessee, Inc. Jeanine Warren, Nancy Hyde, AllCare Professional Svcs., and Stella Messer
This is an action whereby the plaintiff seeks to enforce a convenant not to compete in an employment agreement between the defendant, Warren, and the plaintiff. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The motion did not set out any grounds for relief but simply stated that defendants "file this motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Tennesse Rules of Civil Procedure" and referred the court to grounds stated in their briefs in support of themotion. The brief is not included in the record. Apparently, the parties did not make a designation of record and the Clerk of the court correctly omitted the brief pursuant to Rule 24, Tennessee rulesof Appellate Procedure. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Rickye D. Anderson v. Lois L. Anderson
Rickye D. Anderson (the Father) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition to reduce his child support payments to his ex-wife, L. Lois Anderson (the Mother), and ordering him to pay a portion of the Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Wilma Jean Lampley, v. Gordon Ray Lampley
This is a post-divorce decree proceeding in which the defendant husband has appealed from an unsatisfactory disposition of his counter petition to terminate alimony. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
William Jeffrey Tarkington, v. Rebecca Juanita Tarkington
The husband, William Jeffrey Tarkington, has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court finding him and his wife, Rebecca Juanita Tarkington, guilty of inappropriate marital conduct and declaring them to be divorced pursuant to TCA § 36-4-129. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
JoAnne Pollock v. Donnie F. Pollock
The defendant, Donnie F. Pollock, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court awarding the plaintiff a divorce on grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct, awarding plaintiff, $8,000.00 alimony in solido and $500.00 per month alimony until she reaches 65 years or one of the parties dies; ordering defendant to pay $2,400.00 of plaintiff’s attorneys fees, and distributing the marital estate and liability for debts. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals |
