Jimmy Wilson v. State
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Johnetta Nelson v. Innovative Recovery Svcs. Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Hall v. Bill McLesky, et al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Florence Harrell
|
Union | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky W. Mcelhaney v. Howard B. Barnwell
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky McElhaney vs. Howard Barnwell
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kathie King v. Billy King
|
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Sharon Kaye Outten v. Russell Campbell
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: C.J.S.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Jeri Layne
|
Grundy | Court of Appeals | |
Martin Walker vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alfred Bibbins, a/k/a Ed Owens vs. T.R. Gunn
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Services v. D.G.S.L.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ray White v. Regions Financial Corp.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thelia Barrett v. White House Utility District
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Ralph Alley, et al vs. Quebecor World Kingsportet al
|
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
James O'Neal Vineyard, et ux. v. Walker Betty, et ux.
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
12-98-044-CC
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: D.M.S., G.H.S., and T.M.S.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cedric Franklin v. Tennessee Department of Correction
A prison disciplinary board found a minimum security prisoner to be guilty of violation of state law. The prisoner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, claiming that the board had denied him due process. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Billy R. Sadler v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
A prisoner who was denied parole filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, challenging, on constitutional grounds, the procedures followed by the Parole Board. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, v. Jennifer Lee Netherton Whited, et al.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. Appellant/mother challenges the juvenile court’s termination of her rights contending the juvenile court erred by allowing in certain documentary evidence, that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that termination was in the child's best interest, the court failed to state affirmatively that termination was in the best interest of the child, and the petition for termination was defective as it did not explicitly state the statutorily mandated language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(d)(3)(C) (Supp. 2000). As discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Sue S. Plemmons v. Mike Graves, et al.
This case involves whether Mike and Bonnie Graves d/b/a/ GRESCO ("Defendants" or "Lessees") breached a commercial lease with Sue S. Plemmons ("Plaintiff" or "Lessor"). The lease was entered into in 1983 and permitted the installation of a billboard on Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff claims Lessees breached the lease when they paid the rent for 1999 late and when they refused to pay an increase from $250 to $1,500 in the annual rent. The Trial Court held that Lessees did not breach the lease and dismissed the case. We affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald Strickland v. Tami M. Franklin
This appeal involves the custody of a child born out of wedlock to a mother who was at all times married to another man. The trial court awarded the mother custody. The father of the child now appeals. We have determined that the trial judge did not err in failing to recuse himself and properly awarded custody to the mother. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Yona Boyd, et al. v. Donald Bruce, M.D., et al.
This appeal arises from the third effort of the plaintiffs to obtain compensation and other employment benefits from their former employer. The same claims were first filed in Chancery Court against the doctor and his management company, and the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to join an indispensable party. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed suit in Chancery Court against the company which supplied the employee handbook and other services to the doctor. That case was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs then again filed suit against the doctor-employer in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the case by converting the doctor-employer's motion for Rule 11 sanctions into a motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. The plaintiffs now appeal that dismissal to this court. We affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |