01A01-9604-CH-00149
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9508-CV-00175
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9604-CH-00091
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9511-CH-00412
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9511-CV-00410
|
Court of Appeals | ||
The Honorable Frank v. Williams, Iii
|
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9504-CV-00073
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9511-CV-00262
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9409-CH-00213
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9605-CV-00163
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9604-CV-00119
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9603-CV-00078
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9601-CH-00046
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-DR-00464
|
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9604-CV-00145
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9510-CV-00231
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9505-CH-00102
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9509-CH-00202
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Setters individually and as the parent of minors Melanie Ann Setters and Nicole Krystal Setters, v. Permanent General Assurance Corporation
This is a declaratory judgment action. In the complaint, Wendy Setters (Mrs. Setters) seeks a declaration that an exclusion in her automobile insurance policy is invalid as against public policy; and, alternatively, that the exclusion, due to an ambiguity in the insurance policy, is unenforceable against her. The subject provision excludes the extension of liability coverage to an insured when that person's negligence causes injury to a family member. Relying on this exclusion, the defendant, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (Permanent General), denied coverage with respect to claims asserted by Mrs. Setters individually and on behalf of her children arising solely out of injuries sustained by the children in an automobile accident. The accident was caused, in part, by the negligent driving of her husband. The trial court granted Permanent General's motion for judgement on the pleadings, finding the exclusion to be valid, enforceable and not violative of the public policy" of Tennessee. Plaintiff appeals, raising two issues that present the following questions: 1. Is a provision in an automobile insurance policy excluding coverage for liability to a "family member" violative of the public policy of Tennessee? 2. Is the liability coverage in the subject policy ambiguous so as to warrant a strict constructino against Permanent General? |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Zella Balentine, v. Simon White, In Re: Paternity of Ashley Arron Balentine, a Minor
Zella Balentine (“plaintiff”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Hardin County seeking to have that court declare Simon White (“defendant”) to be the natural father of the parties’ minor child, Ashley Balentine. The Hardin County General Sessions Court, in its role as Juvenile Court, found defendant to be the father of the child and awarded plaintiff retroactive child support dating back to November 1, 1992. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding retroactive child support back to the date of the child’s birth. For the reasons stated, we find that the trial court did abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse as to this issue and remand this cause to that court for further proceedings. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Grace Thru Faith, v. Tony L. Caldwell, and Tony L. Caldwell and Joann P. Caldwell Trust, v. Edward Irwin and Rebecca Irwin
This is a case involving a trustee’s improper accounting procedures and misuse of funds regarding a trust set up to receive Social Security Insurance payments. At issue is whether Tennessee state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a beneficiary and his representative payee over alleged misuse of Social Security benefits. The trial court found it had jurisdiction. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Melanie Miller, Ashley Miller Luna, & Gregory Luna v. Gary D. Niblack, M.D., Laboratory Investments Inc., et.al. - Concurring
This is an action for negligence in the conducting of a paternity test. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees, Gary D. Niblack, M.D., Laboratory Investments, Inc. and Ren Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Ren Histocompatibility Laboratory, a joint venture, and John Doe. The appellants, Melanie Miller, individually and as next friend for Ashley Miller Luna, a minor, and next friend of Gregory Luna, deceased, have appealed presenting the single issue of whether the trial court erred in doing so. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Howard A. Woods, v. Mutual of Omaha and CNA Insurance Company, and Eastwood Hospital
Woods filed suit against various defendants; however, the judgment before us enters summary judgment in favor of Omaha only and was rendered final by the trial court in accordance with Rule 54.02 T.R.C.P. Thus, Omaha is the only Appellee for purposes of this appeal. This case concerns the validity of a “Compromise Settlement Release” executed by the appellant, Howard A. Woods (Woods), in favor of the appellee, Mutual of Omaha (Omaha). Woods challenges its validity on the ground of mental incapacity. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Omaha Woods has appealed. For reasons hereinafter expressed, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ella Mae Brown v. Marvin Douglas Brown - Concurring
The wife of a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed for divorce, claiming that her husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The husband answered and counterclaimed, and moved the court to order the wife to file a Bill of Particulars, setting forth the facts she was relying upon as grounds for the pending divorce. The court did not respond to the husband’s motion, nor did it respond to the husband’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, but granted the wife an absolute divorce without affording the husband the opportunity to present any evidence. We reverse, and vacate the trial court’s order. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy E. Smith v. Connie Sue Argo Smith
The counter-plaintiff, Connie Argo Smith, appeals from the Trial Court’s judgment awarding her a divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Trial Court also awarded her the marital residence and contents, a 1990 Astro Mini Van, and $100,000.00 cash. The Trial Court required the counter-defendant, Jimmy E. Smith, to pay all marital debts including the mortgage on the home. The court also awarded Mr. Smith a farm, commercial property, the “Smart Station” property, a houseboat, a bass boat, a Chevrolet truck, Mercedes automobile, riding mower, tractor, personal effects and unspecified stocks. |
Warren | Court of Appeals |