Kimberly Diane Ramsey vs. Elmer Cole Ramsey E1999-00577-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
On March 4, 1999, the Plaintiff filed for a divorce. The Defendant was served on March 5, 1999. At the trial court's regular docket sounding held on March 19, 1999, the divorce hearing was set for July 20, 1999. The Defendant filed an answer on April 14, 1999. Neither counsel for the Defendant nor the Defendant appeared at the hearing. After being unable to contact the Defendant's attorney, the trial court heard the evidence and entered an order granting the Plaintiff a divorce, and custody of the child, setting child support, and dividing the marital property. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the order averring he had no notice of the hearing and that Defendant's counsel had other business which kept him away from the hearing. The motion was denied by the trial court. The Defendant appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Greene
Court of Appeals
West v. Maytag 03S01-9803-CH-00026
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl H. Henley,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Herron v. Hornady Truck 03S01-9807-CH-00072
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl Henley,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Kotouc v. Star Knitwear 03S01-9807-CH-00076
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. How E L L N. P E Op L E S
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Th e p la in tiff in ju re d h is le ft a rm in a n in d u s tria l a c c id e n t o n A ugus t 4, 1995. He w as t r ea t ed by N ei l H . Spi t al ny, or t hopedi c s ur geon, w ho di agnos ed t he pr obl em as a par t i al bi ceps m uscl e t ear . C on ser vat i ve t r eat m ent w as r ecom m end ed, w hi ch e s sent i al l y i nv ol ved bri ef i m m ob i l i t y o f t he arm . F urt her tre a tm e n t w as in d ic a te d bec aus e t he pl ai nt i f f cont i nued t o com pl ai n of pai n on ro ta tio n of hi s ar m . E xam i nat i ons by ot her s pec i al i s t s convi nce d D r . Spi t al ny t hat th e p la in tiff w a s s u ff e rin g f r om a c om pr es s i on of an ul nar ner ve, fo r th e c o rr e c tio n of w hi ch he per f or m ed a s ur gi ca l r el ea s e on A ugus t 27, 1996. Th e s ur gi ca l pr oce dur e w as onl y pa r t i al l y s ucc essfu l. T h e p la in tiff cont i nued t o ex peri ence p ai n ca u se d by c ont r ac t i ons of m us cl e, w i t h s om e di s com f or t at t rib u ta b l e t o a c er vi ca l pr obl em unr el at ed t o t he A ugus t 4, 1995 pr obl em . He r eached m axi m um m edi ca l i m pr ovem ent on Febr uar y 7, 1997, w i t h a m e d ica l i m p a irm e n t ratin g o f ten p e rc e n t t o h is a rm . Th e C h a n c e ll o r fo u n d th a t t h e p lain ti ff h a d a d is a b ility " w ith in th e m e a n in g of t he w or ker s ' com pens a tio n la w " o f 7 5 p e rc e n t to h is le ft a rm . T h e e m p lo y e r ap p ea l s, in s is tin g th a t th e a w a rd o f 7 .5 tim e s th e im p a irm e n t ra tin g is ex ce ssi v e and is not s uppor t ed by t he pr oof . E m pl oye r al s o com pl ai ns t hat t he C hanc el l or f ound th a t D r. S p ita ln y d id n o t c o rr e c tly in te rp re t th e A M A G u id e lin e s and r el i ed upo n hi s per sonal anal ysi s of t he G u id e lin e s . Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Calvin Easley vs. James Britt M1998-00971-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Department of Correction stemming from a disciplinary proceeding. After he was reclassified to a higher security status and transferred to another institution, the prisoner filed a petition for writ of common-law certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County claiming that the disciplinary board and the warden had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by finding him guilty of the disciplinary offense of escape. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the prisoner perfected an appeal to this court. While this appeal was pending, the prisoner was released from prison thereby rendering this appeal moot. Accordingly, we vacate the June 12, 1998 order and remand the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss it on the grounds of mootness.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State ex rel. Paula Buchanan v. Joseph Buchanan M1998-00962-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a belated dispute over unpaid child and spousal support. After their divorce, the former spouses twice changed the custody arrangements and support obligation in their 1993 divorce decree without obtaining court approval. In 1998, a private Title IV-D contractor, acting on behalf of the State of Tennessee, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to collect $59,150 in unpaid child support and spousal support from the former husband. The trial court held that the former husband could not, as a matter of law, assert the defenses of laches, estoppel, or waiver against these claims, granted a $51,250 judgment against the former husband, and placed a judgment lien against the former husband's house. While the trial court correctly determined that the former husband could not assert equitable defenses with regard to the child support arrearage, the trial court erred by refusing to permit him to assert equitable defenses against the claim for unpaid spousal support. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment awarding the wife $29,150 for unpaid spousal support and remand the case for further proceedings.
This is a suit for specific performance of a real estate contract. Defendant, Joseph McDaniel, a.k.a. John O. Smith, appeals from the order of the trial court in favor of the Plaintiffs, William L. Hatley, III and Tami R. Hatley.
