01A01-9806-CH-00304
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Nashville Electric Service vs. Stone
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist., vs. Metro. Gov't.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Donoho vs. Donoho, Jr.
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Allen vs. Wiseman
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Willis, et. al. vs. Franklin Co. Bd. of Education
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Trail vs. Transportation Management Svcs., et. al.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Mark S. Tidman and Evelyn J. Tidman v. The Salvation Army, Bertha Worthy, Kenneth E. Brewer, Fred Ruth - Concuring
Two former Salvation Army officers, a husband and wife who had been demoted and discharged, sued their superior officers and The Salvation Army itself for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrageous conduct. The Circuit Court of Davidson County dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm, and hold, in addition, that the defendants’ actions were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Southern Corp. vs. Mark Hiller, et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Crabtree vs. Crabtree
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robertson vs. TN. Walking Horse & Breeders Assoc.
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Ford Consumer Finance Co. vs. Clay
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bess & Cummins vs. Associated Brokers
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Davis Black, v. Michael Walter Black
This appeal involves post-divorce petitions for change of custody and child support. The mother, Elizabeth Davis Black (Tepas), has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court transferring custody of the eleven year old daughter, Chelsea, from the mother to the father, Michael Walter Black, and relieving him of the obligation of child support while the child was in the custody of the father by agreement of the parties. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Greene vs. TN. Dept of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomasson vs. Thomasson
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Reinhart vs. Parks
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Irvin vs. Johnson
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Bursack vs. Wilson
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Moore Construction Co. vs. Story Engineering
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Bennie Day and Karen Day, v. City of Dercherd, Otis B. Smith, Jr., Mayor, Hank Weddington, Bill van Hoosier, Frank Green, and Daryl Doney, Commissioners - Concurring
I concur i the resulst of the majority opinion, but would base that result on different reasoning. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Phyllis Ann Frazier Hamby v. Joseph Dewight Hamby and Anthony Hamby - Concurring
In this divorce action, the wife appeals from the Trial Court’s Order of child support and the evaluation of the marital estate and its distribution. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Etta Mechelle Parks, v. Craig DeWayne Parks
In this divorce case, the appellant Etta Mechelle Parks argues that the trial court erred in awarding her former husband, Craig Dewayne Parks, custody of their two boys, ages seven and almost four. We do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s custody decree. See Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.; Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in placing the children’s sole custody with Mr. Parks. See Grant v. Grant, 286 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Tenn.App. 1954). |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Patrick Alan Wolfe v. Terri Lee Wolfe
In this post-divorce case, the trial court denied the petition of Terri Lee Wooten, formerly Wolfe (“Mother”), seeking sole custody of the parties’ daughter, Kelsea Wolfe, age five and a half. In the same order, the court granted the counterclaim of Patrick Alan Wolfe (“Father”) by modifying Mother’s visitation rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to change the child’s custody. She also claims that the court erred in modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the divorce judgment. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie A. Hassell, v. Thomas W. Hassell
Following the trial of this matter, the court ordered the parties, Leslie A. Hassell (Wife) and Thomas W. Hassell (Husband), to be entitled to a divorce pursuant to T.C.A . § 36 -4 -129 ( b ) . Husband was ordered to pay Wife $500 per month as alimony in futuro and that award is the sole issue presented by Husband to this court on appeal. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals |