Thomas Henry Campbell v. Ruth Caroline Campbell
This appeal involves a motion to modify an alimony award. Appellant, Thomas Henry Campbell (Husband), appeals from the Chancellor’s order denying his motion to modify alim |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Deborah D. Willis v. Cecil Willis, Jr.
This case involves the efforts of the State of Tennessee on relation of Deborah D. Willis, former wife of Cecil Willis, Jr., to obtain the revocation of a surrender executed by him surrendering his three children, Deborah May, Pamela R. and Andrew V. for adoption. The Juvenile Judge, who witnessed the surrenders, later entertained the petition to revoke and ordered the surrenders to be revoked. The respondent, Cecil Willis, Jr., has appealed to this Court, presenting the following issue: I. Whether a Trial Court has authority to revoke a “surrender of Child” by the natural father directly to the natural mother and stepfather almost four (4) years after its execution. Furthermore, whether a surrender simply becomes void after the passing of 120 days when an adoption has not yet occurred. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Virginia Lynn Woolsey, v. Douglas Harmon McPherson
Plaintiff Virginia Lynn Woolsey appeals the trial court’s order removing Jennifer McPherson from her custody and placing the child in the custody of Defendant Douglas Harmon McPherson. McPherson appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay the $15,000 fee of the Guardian ad Litem. We affirm in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr. - Concurring
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern with the language on page 10 of that opinion which states that, “[i]n order to be compelling enough to warrant the dramatic remedy of changed custody, the change of circumstances must be such that ‘continuation of the adjudicated custody will substantially harm the child.’” I acknowledge that this language appears in Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tenn. App. 1995), an opinion of the middle section of this court. However, I further note that Wall cited Contreras v. Ward, 831 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. App. 1991). Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290. The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), wherein the Maryland Court of Special Appeals stated that “[t]he custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, the change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not that of the parents.” |
Court of Appeals | ||
Frizzell Construction, Inc., v. Gatlinburg, LLC.
The facts of this case, as material to this appeal, are relatively simple. The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a hotel in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The contract was a standard 2 |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin R. Wagner and Peggy A. Wagner, v. Tabor Construction, Inc. and John Tabor, D/B/A Tabor Construction Company
The facts of this case are relative (sic) simple. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase a house from the defendant. When the house was complete, excepting some "punch list items" the parties entered into a second contract. By the terms of the second contract, the defendant was to place $5,000.00 in escrow with the monies to be used toward the completion of the "punch list items. Part of the work was compleed on the "punch list" items. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr.
Charles Chandler Brown, Sr., (Father), appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to modify the custody arrangement previously agreed to by the parties and set forth i their final divorce decree. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the trial court's judgment with certain modifications. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Gary Charles Hill, v. Insurance Company of North America
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Policeman's Benefit Assoc. of Nashvillevs. Nautilus Insurance Co.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lescarbeau vs. Lescarbeau
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Caruthers vs. Caruthers
|
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9712-CH-00535
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Fowler vs. Bowie
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Sanjines vs. Sanjines
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Moore vs. Moore
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Pleasant vs. Repass
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9711-PB-00656
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kennedy vs. Robson
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Calvin Maney v. Tennessee Board of Paroles
A prisoner at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, claiming that the Board of Paroles had acted illegally in revoking his parole, and in refusing to recondiser the revocation. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board of Paroles. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
United Steelworkers of America vs. Air Pollution Control Board
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Arwood Sartain, et al vs. John Ross Sartain
|
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Allen Lawrence vs. Town of Brighton
|
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Barnes vs. Bright Glade Home
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Becky Sanders vs. George Gray/John Curtis
|
Tipton | Court of Appeals |
