X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel

02A01-9312-BC-00267
02A01-9312-BC-00267

02A01-9411-PB-00250
02A01-9411-PB-00250
Trial Court Judge: Leonard D. Pierotti

02A01-9405-CV-00106
02A01-9405-CV-00106
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

02C01-9503-CC-00077
02C01-9503-CC-00077
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

Cyril v. Fraser
02C01-9503-CC-00089
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

02C01-9502-CR-00030
02C01-9502-CR-00030
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

02C01-9501-CC-00019
02C01-9501-CC-00019
Trial Court Judge: John P. Colton, Jr.

03C01-9501-CR-00014
03C01-9501-CR-00014
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

03C01-9410-CR-00382
03C01-9410-CR-00382
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Jerry Bain and wife Sue Bain, v. Dr. Wayne Wells, National Medical Enterprises, Inc., New Beginnings Center, University Medical Center and National Recovery Centers of America
01A01-9503-CV-00120
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bobby H. Capers

The captioned defendant, Dr. Wayne Wells, was dismissed by nonsuit and is not involved in this appeal. The remaining defendants have been granted interlocutory appeal from the order of the Trial Judge overruling their motion for summary judgment.

Warren Hinckley v. Tummel & Carroll, a Professional Partnership, Harold K. Tummel, Individually, Kenneth S. Carroll, Individually, and Ray L. Rhymes, Individually
01A01-9504-CV-00174
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

Plaintiff, a resident of Texas sued defendants, residents of Texas, for legal malpractice by failing to timely file a claim against the State of Tennessee for damages allegedly incurred in Dickson County, Tennessee. The Trial Court sustained defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

Frank Rudy Heirs Associates v. Moore and Associates, Inc., Leon Moore, and Sholodge Inc. - Concurring
01-A-01-9505-CH-00219
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

The general partner in a hotel-keeping operation refused to make distributions to the limited partner from the revenues of the venture. The limited partner filed suit against the general partner for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court found that the general partner had breached the partnership agreement, and rendered a partial summary judgment, ordering an immediate distribution to both partners of over $680,000. We affirm.

George H. Richardson v. Joyce R. Richardson
01A01-9507-CH-00304
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jim T. Hamilton

In this divorce action, plaintiff/appellant, George H. Richardson, appealed and presented three issues: (1) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to eliminate appellant's alimony obligation in the form of making the monthly mortgage payment on the marital residence occupied by appellee as well as paying appellee's car payments[,]" (2) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to relieve appellant of his obligation to pay for appellee's attorney's fees[,]" and (3) "Whether the trial court erred in failing to adopt appellant's proposed division of marital property."

IN RE: Estate of Odell P. Bradley, Deceased; Edith Steward and Barbara Ramsey v. Christian F. Hofstetter Executor, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9411-PB-00553
Authoring Judge: Judge Hewitt Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe P. Binkley, Sr.

Contestants (“appellants”) have appealed from a dismissal of a will contest suit filed by them in the Davidson County Probate Court. Following  a bench trial, the Honorable Joe P. Binkley, Sr., Special Judge, found that no proof had been presented to establish that the decedent was unduly influenced or that he was of unsound mind, and that the will was in fact his proper Last Will and Testament. The contestants' complaint was  dismissed. One of the contestants below has appealed pro se. Appellant's brief fails to comply with T.R.A.P. 27(a) in several ways, one of them being an absence of the statement of the issues. In order to properly dispose of this case, we conclude that the issue presented is whether the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court. We find that it does not and affirm.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03C01-9503-CR-00086
03C01-9503-CR-00086
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03A01-9401-CV-00032
03A01-9401-CV-00032

03C01-9403-CR-00112
03C01-9403-CR-00112
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry