Shannon Rhea Roberts v. Creig McLaughlin - Concurring
This case originated as a paternity action. Shannon Rea Roberts (“Ms. Roberts”) sought to establish that Creig McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”) was the father of her child, Dylan Daniels Roberts (“Dylan”) (DOB: February 14, 1997). The part of the case now before us concerns the petition to intervene filed in that proceeding by Janice Roberts (“Grandmother”), who is the mother of Shannon Rea Roberts and the grandmother of Dylan. In her petition, Grandmother seeks court-ordered “reasonable visitation rights” with Dylan. McLaughlin moved to dismiss Grandmother’s petition, relying on Rule 12.02(6), Tenn.R.Civ.P., and asserting that the petition “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”1 Id. The trial court granted McLaughlin’s motion, finding2 that T.C.A. § 36-6-306 (Supp. 1998) does not authorize an award of grandparents’ visitation under the undisputed material facts of this case. Grandmother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles ClayYoung v. Louise Johnson, Toy Young, and Hubert Barr
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint ["Torts Suit"] for damages suffered as a result of Defendants' removal of a dwelling he constructed on Young-Graham family cemetery property, and for back wages as a maintenance worker at the cemetery and punitive damages. The Trial Court, after consideration of the pleadings and Affidavits filed by the parties, entered an Order granting the Defendants summary judgment, which judgment the Plaintiff appeals. The appeal was submitted on briefs and addressed only the Defendants' removal of the dwelling the Plaintiff constructed on cemetery property. For the reasons herein stated, we affirm the Trial Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, v. James Bostick Osborne, In the matter of Sherry Monet Hendren
This case involves a petition for termination of parental rights. The Respondent/Appellant, James Bostick Osborne, appeals from an order of the Juvenile Court of Davidson County terminating his parental rights as the biological father of Sherry Money Hendren. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Betty Nesmith and Cecil Nesmith, v. John Alsup, II, and Teresa Alsup
The plaintiff petitioned the court for a declaration that she was entitled to a one-half interest in a farm that had been part of her father’s estate. Her brother responded by claiming to be the sole owner under the provisions of their father’s will, or in the alternative, under a theory of adverse possession. The trial court found that the effect of the will was to divide the property equally between the siblings, and that the brother failed to prove ownership by adverse possession. We affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Mobile Living, Inc., v. J. Michael Tomlin and Aubrey Earl Gregeory, et al.
This case is before the court on interlocutory appeal from the Chancery Court of Davidson County under Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9. The trial court order granting the interlocutory appeal presents a single issue: "1. Whether the defendant Gregory's affirmative defenses of waiver, laches and estoppel, abandonment, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing are matters of law to be decided by the court and not material facts in dispute, which would be decided by the jury in the case." |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
TN Downs vs. William Gibbons
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Kensinger vs.s James Kensinger
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Valerie Humphries vs. Plant Maint.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brennco Inc. vs. Chattanooga Better Housing Comm.
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Memphis Housing vs. Tara Thompson
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State/Carolyn Collier vs. Ephram Collier
|
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Nichols vs. Nichols
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9811-CH-000380
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Paula Marie Brown, v. James A. Brown - Concurring
I concur i themajority opinion. I agree that the majority's approach to determining gross income for current child support is correct in this case. I write separately to express my view that the two-year-average approach utilized by the majority in this case may not be appropriate in all cases. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Byrd vs. Gibson
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Thompson vs. Telco
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Hosale vs. Warren
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Annie Christina Harris
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Eatherly vs. Eatherly
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Smith vs. Smith
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9809-CV-00312
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Behm vs. Behm
|
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Phung vs. Case
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Phung vs. Case
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Bok vs. State
|
Court of Appeals |