Jeremy Tompkins vs. Mary Rainey
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: S.D., M.D., Sh.D., & Ma.S.
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
James Powell vs. M.P. Gurkin
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
John Watson vs. Mike Young
|
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
Glenda Click, as next of kin to Curtis Hugh Click, Deceased, v. Nelson J. Mangione, et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The paintiff’s husband died of a cardiac rupture while in the care of the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit, asserting medical malpractice in the care of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors, finding that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony failed to show that a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff did not present evidence that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the decedent. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the trial court is affirmed |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Norman Redman. v. Donna Kay Redman
A divorce decree was filed in 1993 with the marital assets being divided by agreement of these parties. The decree awarded Husband’s military retirement benefits to Wife “as a division of marital property.” The decree also provided that inasmuch as Wife was to receive that pension, she should be responsible for the support of the parties’ two minor children. In 1999, after the children reached majority, Husband filed this “Petition to Discontinue Child Support and Modify Final Judgment by Restoring Retirement Benefits.” The Trial Court held that the divorce decree ordered Husband to pay Wife his military pension as a division of marital property, not child support, and therefore declined to modify the original decree. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Norman Redman v. Donna Kay Redman - Concurring
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that there is no basis for invalidating the 1993 award to Wife of Husband’s Air Force retirement -- an award made by the trial court “as a division of marital property.” As a part of an unappealed-from final judgment, the trial court’s division-ofproperty award is not subject to challenge in this proceeding, see Vanatta v. Vanatta, 701 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), in the absence of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 basis for relief, and I find no such basis in the meager record before us. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Morris Slutsky, et ux vs. City of Chattanooga, et al
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jones vs. H.G. Hill Realty Co.
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Whiteaker vs. City of Cookeville
|
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Newton, et al vs. Ceasar, et al
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Howard vs. Jack Morgan, et al
|
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
William Garrett v. Board of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ceramic Tile Distributors vs. Western Express
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Barge vs. Sadler
|
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Washington vs. The 822 Corporation, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Terry vs. Terry
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Of Law. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2D 208, 214 (Tenn. 1993). The Party Seeking Summary Judgment Has
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth M. Seaton D/B/A Kms Enterprises v. Tennessee
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Eslick vs. Campbell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Equifax vs. Johnson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy Lee Barnes Williams v. Rodney Lee Williams.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Abernathy vs. Abernathy
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Pruitt
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Anderton vs. Amari
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |