State vs. Joe Patrick Sr.
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Charles Smith
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. James Craft
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02C01-9601-CR-00020
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Bobby Anderson
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Tony Higgs
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Heather Dowdy
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Will Mays
|
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Joe Sloan
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Teachers Credit Union vs. Orr
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State., ex. rel. Shaver vs. Shaver
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Laney vs. Campbell, Commissioner
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Loftus vs. Loftus, Jr.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rudy Rogers vs. Gerald & Tony Young
|
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-611-CV-00267
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Fred Dean vs. Donal Campbell, et al
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Jenkins vs. Jenkins
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Southeast Drilling & Blasting Services vs. BRS Construction Co.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Droussoitis vs. Damrron, et. al.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Reliance Insurance Co. vs. WSN Leasing, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tomlin, a minor., et. al. vs. Warren,
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis vs. Curtis
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Gray
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Carolyn Franklin and Edward J. Franklin v. Rebecca A. Kimberly, et. al. - Concurring
This is an appeal from an interlocutory ruling which the Trial Judge rendered final as provided by TRCP Rule 54.02. The controversy on appeal is between St. Paul Insurance Company, a/k/a Economy Fire and Casualty Company, (hereafter St. Paul), and Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (hereafter Tennessee Farmers). The plaintiffs have filed a brief in support of their interest in the disposition of the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Tom Milligan and wife Louise Millgan v. Curtis George and wife Wilma George
This interlocutory appeal involves a boundary line dispute between neighbors who live along Wilmouth Creek in Cannon County. Following inconclusive litigation between two of their neighbors, the owners of one of the tracts filed a boundary line action in the Chancery Court for Cannon County against the owners of one of the adjoining tracts that had been involved in the earlier litigation. The defending landowners moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the decision in the earlier litigation was res judicata as to the plaintiff landowners’ claims. The trial court denied the motion but grante permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We granted the application for permission to appeal and now affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss because the parties in this case and the former case are not the same. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals |