Charles Montague, v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, and Warden Howard Carlton
The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, brought this action against the Department and its Commissioner seeking a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a refund of $64.00 charged against his custodial account for a key lost by the prisoner. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Haren Construction v. Metro Nashville and Davidson County
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Miller vs. Willbanks
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Rubin vs. Rubin
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Suntrust Bank vs. Johnson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis v. Erwin
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Lawson vs. Lawson
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Crittenden vs. Crittenden
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Perkins vs. Kirby
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Simmons vs. Russell, et. al.
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Mangrum
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Forbes vs. Wilson Co. Emergency
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Shahrdar vs. Global Housing, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wakefield vs. Crawley
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Dempsey vs. International
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Helm vs. Hayes
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Oates vs. Glenstone
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Bettye/Louis Schopfer vs. Kroger
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Don/Phil Gordon vs. Georgetown Univ
|
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Randall Fleming vs. Jacqueline Yi
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Edwin B. Raskin Co. vs. Johnson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re: Brittany Swanson, a minor
|
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Fuller vs. Eligo Fuller
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Tanaka vs. Meares
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Betty J. Collins, v. David Collins
Plaintiffs Betty J. Collins, Panther Park Missionary Baptist Church, and six Church trustees appeal the trial court’s final judgment which established the boundary line between the parties’ respective properties. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that an existing fence row represents the boundary line between the properties. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals |