COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

Harjes vs. Russell 03A01-9810-CH-00321	Hamilton	Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Debyl vs. Graham 03A01-9901-GS-00015		Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Creswell vs. Creswell 03A01-9804-CH-00151		Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Harvey vs. Ford Motor Credit 03A01-9807-CV-00235		Court of Appeals	05/21/99
) Hon. F Rank v. Will Iams, Iii 03101-9807-CH-00239		Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Haynes vs. Harris 01A01-9810-CV-00518	Hickman	Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Ausbrooks vs. Ausbrooks 01A01-9803-CH-00114 Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell	Williamson	Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Winfree vs. Winfree 01A01-9805-CH-00264 Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.	Warren	Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Farrar vs. Segroves 01A01-9808-CH-00443 Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb	Bedford	Court of Appeals	05/21/99
Lee P. Fite, Individually and Derivatively on behalf of H & M Construction Co., Inc. v. Richard L. Fite, C. David Fite, Larry P. Becker, et al 02A01-9710-CH-00266 Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris This case involves allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud in the inducement of a contract, and violation of the Tennessee Securities Act. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants, his two brothers who are majority shareholders in the family corporation, the corporation, as an alter ego or veil of the majority shareholders, and an officer and director of the corporation, used fraudulent expense and contract-kickback schemes to lower the book value of the corporation’s stock when plaintiff executed an option to sell agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We reverse and remand.	Madison	Court of Appeals	05/19/99
Atty. Gen. vs. Elk View Land & Gravel 03A01-9808-CV-00247		Court of Appeals	05/19/99
Bethany Christian Services vs. Jackson 03A01-9810-JV-00345		Court of Appeals	05/19/99
Henry vs. Metro Gov't 01A01-9804-CV-00208	Davidson	Court of Appeals	05/13/99
Collins vs. Willis 01A01-9808-CH-00433 Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart	Coffee	Court of Appeals	05/13/99
Cobble vs. Shewmake et al 01A01-9803-CV-00169		Court of Appeals	05/13/99
Grimes vs. Grimes 01A01-9809-CH-00483 Trial Court Judge: James L. Weatherford	Maury	Court of Appeals	05/13/99
Robert Belch vs. Delisa Alsup 02A01-9806-CH-00165 Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris	Madison	Court of Appeals	05/11/99
Charles Belk vs. Obion Co. 02A01-9807-CV-00189 Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree	Obion	Court of Appeals	05/11/99
The Realty Shop vs. RR Westminster Holding 01A01-9609-CH-00418		Court of Appeals	05/11/99
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/11/99
Gordon Peters vs. Sharon Peters 02A01-9810-CH-00283 Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris	Madison	Court of Appeals	05/10/99
State vs. William Cox vs. A.C. Gilless 02A01-9806-CR-00154 Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/10/99
Annette Willis Clay v. Kerry Clay 02A01-9803-CV-00059 Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers Trial Court Judge: Judge D'Army Bailey Annette Clay (“Wife” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court which granted a divorce to Annette Clay and Kerry Clay (“Husband” or “Appellee”), awarded to Husband $17,270.00 of Wife’s total retirement benefit, awarded to Wife $212.00 of Husband’s $28,460.80 workers’ compensation settlement, and failed to award any amount of Husband’s workers’ compensation settlement as child support for the parties’ children.	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/07/99
Quality First Staffing Services, v. Chase-Cavett Services, Inc., and Personnel Plus, Inc. 02A01-9807-CH-00205 Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Neal Small James Richardson (“Richardson”) and James Taylor (“Taylor”), officers and agents 1It is not nec essary tha t the perso n who is c harged with conte mpt b e a party to the underlying proceeding. Tennessee Code Annotated §29-9-102(3) states that a court can inflict punishments for contempts of court for “the willful disobedience or resistance of an y officer of the said courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person to any lawful writ, pro cess, o rder, rule, de cree, or command of sa id courts .” (em phasis added). It is also not necessary that the proceedings out of which the contempt arose be complete. A judgment of contempt fixing punishment is a final judgment from w hich app eal will lie. Hall v . Hall, 772 S.W.2d 432, (Tenn.App. 1989 ); Rules App.Proc., Rule 3(a). 2 of Personnel Plus, Inc. (“Personnel”) appeal the ruling of the trial court holding them in contempt for failure to pay Sixty Seven Thousand Dollars ($67,000.00) owed by Personnel to Quality First Staffing Services (“Quality”) into the Registry of the Chancery Clerk.	Shelby	Court of Appeals	05/07/99
John C. Tomlinson v. Tennessee Department of Correction - Concurring 01A01-9804-CH-00204 Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. In this appeal, a state prisoner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action in which he contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act’s allegedly lesser sentences for armed robbery, aggravated rape and aggravated kidnaping rather than the sentences imposed upon him at the time of his convictions in 1983. He also contends he is entitled, as a matter of law, to certain sentence reduction credits. Finally, he contends that, taken together, the downward adjustments of his sentence on the basis of these two contentions would entitle him to immediate release from custody. We affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's petition because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	05/05/99