COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

Susan Manquella Adams v.Earnie Bryan Adams 01A01-9711-CV-00626 Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson Susan Manquella Adams, hereafter referred to as the wife, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court declaring her and her husband, Earnie Bryan Adams, to be divorced, awarding joint custody of two children with alternating physical custody in each parent, and providing for child support and other incidentals	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/16/98
Irwin vs. Irwin 01A01-9803-CH-00128 Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash	Rutherford	Court of Appeals	10/16/98
Fox vs. City of Dover 01A01-9803-CV-00122 Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace	Stewart	Court of Appeals	10/16/98
Rayburn vs. Rayburn 01A01-9710-CH-00548 Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin	Cheatham	Court of Appeals	10/16/98
Lifetime Books vs. Thomas Nelson 01A01-9708-CV-00399 Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/16/98
02A01-9705-CV-00103 02A01-9705-CV-00103 Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey	Shelby	Court of Appeals	10/15/98
Joel Summers vs. Lisa Summers 02A01-9709-CH-00230 Trial Court Judge: John Walton West	Carroll	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Lucy L. Bond v. Belle Meade Fund Partners v. Belle Meade Fund Partners, Branch Property L.P., Branch Property, Ltd. Partnership 01A01-9802-CV-00059 Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers The plaintiff sued for injury suffered when she stepped into a hole in the asphalt surface of a parking lot provided for customers of Kroger Company. Kroger was dismissed by nonsuit, and the remaining defendants were dismissed by summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed and presented the following issue: I. Whether a genuine issue of material fact has been raised by the plaintiff/appellant, so as to warrant this cause to be tried on its merits.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Logan vs. Logan 01A01-9711-CH-00660 Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch		Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Logan vs. Logan 01A01-9711-CH-00660 Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins	Coffee	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Williams vs. Williams 01A01-9709-CV-00522 Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Garrard vs. Metropolitan Gov't. 01A01-9803-CV-00117 Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Turner vs. Donal Campbell et al 01A01-9802-CH-00089 Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Rhoden vs. Dept. of Correction 01A01-9711-CH-00636 Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Throneberry Properties et al vs. Allen 01A01-9710-CH-00612	Rutherford	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Sarah v. Peltz, 01A01-9711-CH-00659 Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell	Williamson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Wallace vs. Wallace 01A01-9712-CC-00751 Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
01A01-9712-CH-00743 01A01-9712-CH-00743 Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal	Pickett	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors vs. Nashville Lodging 01A01-9712-CH-00723 Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd		Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Baxter Neal Helson, v. Leticia Finley Cyrus 01-A01-9802-CH-00091 Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell The issues in this appeal involve the lower court's order incorporating (1) a provision that a nine-year-old child did not have to visit with his father against this (the child's) wishes and (2) a provision that the mother was to arrange a private phone call between the child and his father once a week. We revers the order with respect to visitation. Otherwise we affirm.	Williamson	Court of Appeals	10/14/98
Jamie Hamilton vs. Gary Cook 02A01-9712-CV-00324 Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree	Obion	Court of Appeals	10/12/98
Randy Watkins vs. Vicki Watkins 02A01-9708-CH-00178 Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton	Fayette	Court of Appeals	10/12/98
Jimmy Hawkins vs. Dennis Ellis 02A01-9708-CH-00203 Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton	McNairy	Court of Appeals	10/12/98
Charles Garrison v. James Stamps M2001-02900-COA-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain Trial Court Judge: Robert P. Hamilton Charles Garrison and James C. Stamps were involved in an automobile accident on October 10, 1998 wherein Garrison was seriously injured. Stamps was uninsured, and Garrison was beneficiary of uninsured motorists coverage under policies of insurance issued to his parents. With no suit ever filed against Stamps, Garrison and his parents reached an agreement with the uninsured motorists carriers whereby the carriers paid the limits of their uninsured motorists coverage. Charles Garrison being a minor, a Petition for court approval of the settlement was filed naming Stamps as the defendant, and an Order was entered approving the settlement. Garrison then filed suit against Stamps, which suit was met with a Summary Judgment Motion by Stamps claiming that he was released from liability by the settlement Order. Garrison filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 Motion seeking to have the settlement Order revised to reflect the true facts of the settlement. This Motion was granted, and Stamps appeals. We hold that Stamps is without standing to assert any rights under the settlement Order and, on this basis, affirm the judgment.	Wilson	Court of Appeals	10/10/98
Mathivathani Mohan vs. Rathnasabapathy Mohan - Concurring/Dissenting 01-A-01-9708-CV-00415 Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley This is an appeal from the final divorce decree of Rathnasabapathy Mohan ("the Husband") and Mathivathani Mohan ("the Wife") which was entered by the lower court in December of 1996. The contested divorce action initiated by the Wife involved issues of custody, visitation, child support, alimony, classification and division of marital property, and apportionment of marital debt. This appeal by the Husband emanates from the fact the Husband was not present when the final hearing took place.	Davidson	Court of Appeals	10/09/98