W. Dale Gordon v. Robbyn Gordon - Concurring
This is a divorce case that comes to us in an unusual posture. The Husband filed his original complaint on April 3, 1996. No answer was filed by the Wife. A marital dissolution agreement was filed on June 12, 1996. The marital dissolution agreement provided for the division of the parties' property and further contained the following provision: The parties agree that they are equally responsible for the breakdown of the marriage and respectfully request the court to declare them divorced rather than awarding a divorce to either party alone. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Jorge Ariel Sanjines, M.D., v. Ortwein and Associates, P.C., William H. Ortwein, J. Cris Helton, and John R. Morgan
Plaintiff, incarcerated in prison, brought this action against this attorney for alleged malpractice in representing him in the charges brought against him for criminal conduct. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Edward J. Eyring, M.D., v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center, Inc., and Fort Sanders Alliance, Inc.
We are primarily called upon in this appeal to decide whether the Tennessee Peer Review Law of 1967 ( T. C. A. § 63-6-219) ( t he La w), grants immunity to hospitals for actions taken against physicians. 1. Parkwest Hospital was purchased by Fort Sanders Alliance in 1990 and became known as Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center. We hereafter refer to the hospital as "Parkwest". 2. upon recommendations of peer review boards or committees. For reasons hereinafter stated, we believe that the law was intended to, and does, grant hospitals such immunity. We affimr the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Terri G. Bowers, v. Frederick Allan Bowers
In this custody dispute, the Trial Judge granted custody of the parties' child to the father, and the mother has appealed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Brian Minnich, v. Nancy Graves Roberson
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting joint custody of the parties' minor children to the parties, with the husband having primary residential custody. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re: Estate of Carl Parrott; Wanda P. Patterson v. Jerry K Galyon - Concurring
This is a declaratory action wherein the parties seek to have a portion of the will of Carl Parrot t, deceased, construed by the court. Carl Parrott died testate on February 20, 1990. His Last Will and Testament was executed on January 3, 1983, and named his attorney, Jerry K. Galyon, and his daughter, Wanda Parrott Patterson, co- executors. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Williams v. Memphis Housing Authority and Mable Monday v. Memphis Housing Authority
Defendant Memphis Housing Authority(MHA) appeals several orders entered by the trial court in favor of two of MHA’s former employees, Plaintiffs/Appellees Jerry D. Williams and Mable Monday (collectively, the Employees). In separate actions filed below, the Employees sued MHA for breach of employment contract. In both cases, the trial court entered orders granting the Employees’ motions for summary judgment based on the court’s conclusion that MHA’s Manual of Operations constituted part of the employment contract between the parties and, further, that MHA breached this contract by terminating the Employees without just cause. Amending the pleadings to conform to the proof in the records, the trial court’s foregoing orders also granted summary judgment to the Employees on their claims that, in terminating the Employees, MHA violated their rights to substantive and procedural due process.1 After conducting a subsequent hearing on the issue of remedies, the trial court entered final orders granting the Employees back pay and reinstatement to their former positions with MHA.2 Upon MHA’s motion, this court consolidated MHA’s appeals of the trial court’s judgments in favor of Williams and Monday because the appeals involve common questions of law and fact.3 |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Iva Dell Brown McAlexander v. Kenneth Jackson McAlexander
Following the trial court’s order granting the parties an absolute divorce, distributing the parties’ property, awarding custody of the parties’ four minor children to Iva Dell Brown McAlexander (the Mother), and ordering Kenneth Jackson McAlexander (the Father) to pay child support to the Mother pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, Father appealed. The sole issue presented by the Father is whether the trial court erred in granting custody of the parties’ four children to the Mother. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Evelyn Campbell, a/k.a Elvin Campbell, Erma Dorton and Edria Humphrey, vs. Union Planters Bank , Formerly Commerce Federal Savings Bank
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Gilley vs. Culpepper
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Jane & John Doe vs. Vanderbilt Univ., et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gilley vs. Culpepper
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nationsbank vs. JDRC
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Moore vs. Tate
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Burke vs. The TN. Walking Horse Breeders
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
State, ex. rel., Douglas Sizemore vs. United Physicians Insurance
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Grace vs. Grace, Jr.,
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dockery vs. Estate of Jack C. Massey
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
International Collection Services vs. Bailey
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
American Steinwinter Investment Group vs. American Steinwinter, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Robin Lethco and husband, Mark Lethco v. John Huffman, M.D.
The sole issue on this appeal, as stated by the appellant, is whether the trial court erred in dismissing this action on motion for summary judgment. More properly stated, the issue is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a continuance of the hearing for summary judgment or alternatively whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs relief from the summary judgment. We find no error on the part of the trial court and accordingly affirm the judgment. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals |