APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

From the decision of the Trial Court dismissing a portion of the original complaint and from the subsequent decision of the Trial Court granting summary judgment for the Defendants as to a second ground of recovery sought, the Plaintiff was granted an interlocutory appeal to this court.

The majority has decided that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 (1994) permits the purchaser of a used jet aircraft to reduce his state tax liability by deducting the value of a previously owned prop-driven aircraft from the purchase price of the jet aircraft. I do not agree that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 applies to the purchase of the jet because the transaction does not involve a trade or series of trades.

Plaintiff-Appellant, TY Farming Company, Inc. (“TY Farming”), appeals the judgment of the trial court denying TY Farming’s claims against Defendants-Appellees Dyer County (“Dyer County”) and George Belew (“Belew”) relative to a dirt road which crossed properties owned by TY Farming, Belew, and other landowners in Dyer County. The trial court found that the dirt road had been abandoned by the County and the general public, that the road was no longer a public road, and, therefore, that the County had no obligation to maintain the road. Accordingly, the judgment denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against the County and dismissed the County from the lawsuit. With regard to TY Farming’s claim against Belew, the judgment granted TY Farming an easement across the property of Belew. The trial court further found that Belew had deprived TY Farming of its previously existing easement of ingress and egress to its property, but the court found that TY Farming had suffered no damages because it had continuous access to its property by another route. Accordingly, the trial court denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against Belew and dismissed TY Farming’s complaint in its entirety.

This Board added this language in its amendment to the original version of the rule. This case involves a challenge to the validity of a rule promulgated by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. Gate Pharmaceuticals appeals the judgment of the trial court upholding the rule’s validity. We affirm.

The majority has decided that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 (1994) permits the purchaser of a used jet aircraft to reduce his state tax liability by deducting the value of a previously owned prop-driven aircraft from the purchase price of the jet aircraft. I do not agree that Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-510 applies to the purchase of the jet because the transaction does not involve a trade or series of trades.

The captioned plaintiff, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, filed this suit for certiorari from an adverse decision of the Board of Paroles. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

The captioned plaintiff, an inmate of the Department of Correction, filed this suit against the Governor, Commissioner of Correction and Commissioner of Correction, seeking a declaration of his rights to release from incarceration. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss supported by affidavit of an official of the Department of Correction. The motion was therefore a motion for summary judgment. T.R.C.P. Rule 12.02.

This is a suit brought by Plaintiffs-Appellants, David Via and his wife Patty Via (“Via”), against Defendants-Appellees, Jimmy Joe Welch, Herman Reed and Tommy Reed (collectively
“Welch”). In this appeal, Via seeks to revive a decree for specific performance entered by this Court on August 28, 1984. Specific performance is no longer available since the property was lost to foreclosure. Via now seeks to have the decree revived and converted to a judgment for money damages. The trial court ruled that Via is not entitled to the relief sought and dismissed Via’s lawsuit. We affirm.

Defendant-Appellant, Robert Alan Beem (“Husband”), appeals the judgment of the trial court ordering him to pay child support, alimony, and attorney’s fees to Plaintiff-Appellee, Barbara Beem (“Wife”).

This case involves a petition for increase of child support. Petitioner, Stephen David Scofield (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to modify the parties’ final decree of divorce to increase child support payments by Respondent, Helen Bond Scofield 2 (Mother).