Please enter some keywords to search.
| W2000-01548-COA-R3-CV
W2000-01548-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Originating Judge:Martha B. Brasfield |
McNairy County | Court of Appeals | 02/21/01 | |
| Gloria Guinn vs. Lucious Guinn
W1999-01809-COA-R3-CV
This is a post-divorce proceeding pursuant to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60. Defendant-husband filed a motion to set aside a final decree of divorce granted on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, because there was no written agreement settling property rights. Plaintiff-wife filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60 to amend the final decree of divorce to show that the ground for divorce is inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court denied Husband's motion, granted Wife's motion and entered an amended final decree showing the ground for divorce as inappropriate marital conduct. Husband appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:George H. Brown |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/21/01 | |
| Paul Freeman v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
W2000-00943-CCA-R3-PC
As noted in the majority opinion, the appellant does not contend the City Court did not advise him of his constitutional rights. The sole issue in this case is whether the appellant was impaired to the degree that he did not voluntarily enter his guilty plea.
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Originating Judge:Judge Roger A. Page |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/21/01 | |
| Cheryl/Edwin Oliver vs. Earl Quinby
W2000-02158-COA-R3-CV
This case arises out of an automobile accident caused by a pile of carpet lying in the roadway. Plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by an unknown motorist. Plaintiffs' insurance carrier filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Originating Judge:Karen R. Williams |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/21/01 | |
| Phillip Page vs. Lucille Page
W2000-01314-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Originating Judge:John R. Mccarroll, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| William Fann vs. Annette Fann
W2000-02431-COA-R3-CV
Husband sued for divorce, alleging inappropriate marital conduct. Wife filed an answer and counter-complaint, but later dismissed the counter-complaint and chose to contest the divorce. Trial court granted divorce to husband. Wife appeals, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the divorce on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct without evidence to corroborate husband's allegations and that husband had failed to carry his burden of proving cruel and inhuman treatment. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Ron E. Harmon |
Carroll County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| Jeffrey Ward vs. Valarie Ward
W2000-01081-COA-R3-CV
This appeal arises from a change of child custody action. Mother was awarded custody of Child pursuant to a marital dissolution agreement. Thereafter, Mother had sexual relations with a minor. This relationship led to an assault on minor by a third party in the presence of Child. This assault revealed the relationship of Mother and minor to the minor's parents. Pursuant to a deal with the minor's parents, Mother was forced to relocate to another state. When Father discovered the circumstances surrounding this relationship, he petitioned for a change of custody on the basis that Mother had exposed Child to criminal activity. In addition, Father cited Mother's refusal to grant him visitation and charged that she was improperly caring for Child. The trial court found a material change of circumstances requiring a comparison of the fitness of the parents. The court found Father more fit and granted a change of custody. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Originating Judge:George R. Ellis |
Crockett County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| Ted F. Walker v. The Board of Professional
02338-SC-R3-BP
Originating Judge:Jeffrey F. Stewart |
Hamilton County | Supreme Court | 02/20/01 | |
| Phillip Page vs. Lucille Page
W2000-01314-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Originating Judge:John R. Mccarroll, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| Lorrie Barnes vs. Richard Barnes
W2000-01285-COA-R3-CV
Father filed a petition for change of custody of the parties' three minor children. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that there had been a material change of circumstances and that a change of custody to Father was in the best interest of the children. Mother has appealed. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Don H. Allen |
Madison County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| Shawn Farien vs. Regina Farien
W2000-00656-COA-R3-CV
This is a child custody case. The parties and their minor child lived in Tennessee with the father's parents. The mother moved to Georgia with the child to live with her parents. Custody was awarded to the mother, and the father was granted broad visitation rights. The father appeals. We affirm, finding that the custody award is based in large part on the trial court's determinations of credibility and assessment of the parties' demeanor, and finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the award of custody to the mother.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| William Wilson vs. Patricia Wilson
W2000-01384-COA-R3-CV
This is a divorce case in which alimony is in dispute. At trial, the parties stipulated to the grounds for divorce, and the issue of fault was not considered. The trial court awarded the wife alimony in solido of $750 per month until she reached the age of sixty, and specified that it was non-modifiable upon the wife's death or remarriage. The husband appeals. On appeal, we affirm the trial court's decision awarding the wife alimony in solido, and modify the amount to $500 per month until she reaches the age of sixty.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Originating Judge:Robert L. Childers |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| State vs. Scott Houston Nix
E1999-02715-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Originating Judge:Ray L. Jenkins |
Knox County | Supreme Court | 02/20/01 | |
| State v. Campbell
E2000-00373-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Originating Judge:Lynn W. Brown |
Washington County | Supreme Court | 02/20/01 | |
| Shawn Farien vs. Regina Farien
W2000-00656-COA-R3-CV
This is a child custody case. The parties and their minor child lived in Tennessee with the father's parents. The mother moved to Georgia with the child to live with her parents. Custody was awarded to the mother, and the father was granted broad visitation rights. The father appeals. We affirm, finding that the custody award is based in large part on the trial court's determinations of credibility and assessment of the parties' demeanor, and finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the award of custody to the mother.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Originating Judge:D'Army Bailey |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 02/20/01 | |
| Jehiel Fields vs. State
E1999-00915-SC-R11-PC
The sole issue in this appeal is whether our decision in State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999), changed the standard by which appellate courts review denials of post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals in this case affirmed the denial of the appellant's post-conviction petition, although it expressed concern that this Court inadvertently changed the standard of appellate review in Burns to require a de novo review of a trial court's factual findings regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. While we reaffirm that such claims are mixed questions of law and fact subject to de novo review, we emphasize that Burns did not change the standard of review in this context. Consistent with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, our language in Burns meant only that a trial court's findings of fact be reviewed de novo, with a presumption that those findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. A trial court's conclusions of law are also reviewed under a de novo standard, although the trial court's legal conclusions are accorded no deference or presumption of correctness on appeal. Because the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly applied the appropriate standard of review in this case, the judgment of that court is affirmed, and the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed.
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Originating Judge:R. Steven Bebb |
Bradley County | Supreme Court | 02/20/01 | |
| Jonathan Wilson vs. Sandra Wilson
E2000-01374-COA-R3-CV
This appeal from the Loudon County General Sessions Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding a change of residential custody from Appellant, Sandra Kay Wilson to Appellee, Jonathan David Wilson. Ms. Wilson appeals the decision of the General Sessions Court. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Ms. Sandra Kay Wilson and her surety.
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Originating Judge:William H. Russell |
Loudon County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| M1998-0987-COA-R12-CV
M1998-0987-COA-R12-CV
|
Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | ||
| Cynthia Coppage vs. Grady Coppage
E2000-01630-COA-R3-CV
At issue in this divorce case is the trial court's valuation and division of two parcels of real property and the court's decree with respect to the parties' credit card debt. The husband appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) in its valuation and division of the two properties; and (2) in denying his post-trial motion to sell the two parcels and divide the proceeds equally. The wife asserts as an additional issue that the husband should be required to place in his sole name the credit card debt assigned to him by the trial court. We find and hold that the wife's request is a reasonable one, and, accordingly, modify the trial court's judgment so as to require the husband to convert the debt over into his name by no later than December 31, 2001. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Originating Judge:L. Marie Williams |
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| Debra Cissom, et al vs. Al Miller, et al
E1999-02767-COA-R3-CV
The Plaintiffs sue the Defendants, alleging a nuisance created by chicken houses owned and operated by them in close proximity of the Defendants' property. The Trial Court found a temporary nuisance was created and that, although T.C.A. 44-18-102 was a complete bar to any claims the Plaintiffs might have insofar as three older chicken houses were concerned, is not a bar to their claim as to five new chicken houses. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Originating Judge:Jerri S. Bryant |
Bradley County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| State ex rel Debbie Whitfield vs. Michael Honeycutt
M1999-00914-COA-R3-CV
Appellant, who was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, responded to a petition for contempt regarding past due child support with a request to determine paternity of the child. A paternity test is irrelevant in this case because even proof that he is not the child's father would not be a defense to contempt for failure to comply with a valid court order. We affirm the trial court's denial of the request.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Carol A. Catalano |
Robertson County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| Ernest Frye vs. Blue Ridge Neuroscience Center, et al
E2000-02155-COA-R9-CV
Plaintiff sued Defendants on November 25, 1998, alleging medical malpractice. Summonses were issued but never served on Defendants or returned to the court. Process was never reissued on the first Complaint. A voluntary nonsuit was entered by the Trial Court on June 8, 1999. On November 22, 1999, Plaintiff refiled a similar lawsuit, process issued, and Defendants were served the next day. Defendants filed summary judgment motions claiming that the statute of limitations had run because Plaintiff failed to have process reissued on the first Complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff claimed compliance with Rule 3, and, therefore, that the second lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations. The Trial Court denied the summary judgment motions after determining that Defendants had actual notice of the first lawsuit and thus the spirit of the rules had been complied with. The Trial Court granted Defendants' request for an interlocutory appeal. We granted this interlocutory appeal to decide whether Plaintiff can comply with Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. not by obtaining issuance of new process in his original lawsuit within the one year period provided for in Rule 3, but instead by voluntarily dismissing the first lawsuit and refiling a similar lawsuit with the issuance of process in the second lawsuit within the one year period. Our answer is "no." We reverse the decision of the Trial Court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Originating Judge:John S. Mclellan, III |
Sullivan County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| State of Tennessee v. Graylin Burton
M1999-01997-CCA-R3-PC
The Defendant pleaded guilty to rape. After a hearing, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years and six months in confinement. The Defendant appealed and asks this Court to shorten his sentence. He contends that the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor and failed to apply at least two mitigating factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Originating Judge:Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/16/01 | |
| Opinion With Judge Cain Specifically Concurring In Part Vi Thereof. P
M1998-00987-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
|
Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 | ||
| Ernest F. Phillips vs. County of Anderson, et al
E2000-01204-COA-R3-CV
The defendants, Anderson County and the City of Clinton, entered into an agreement to jointly finance the development of an industrial park to be owned and operated by the City. The plaintiff, Ernest F. Phillips, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the County's financing of a portion of the industrial park is illegal and unconstitutional and that the defendants violated various statutory requirements for the development of industrial parks. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals, arguing: (1) that the County's use of bond proceeds to finance its portion of the industrial park's infrastructure costs constitutes a lending or giving of credit to or in aid of a corporation within the meaning of Article II, Section 29 of the Tennessee Constitution; (2) that the agreement between the County and the City is not legally sufficient under the Industrial Park Act; (3) that the County obtained a statutorily-required certificate of public purpose and necessity by fraud and misrepresentation; and (4) that the County's bond resolutions are fatally defective and call for prohibited expenditures. The City argues (a) that the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the City's actions and (b) that the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants but do not find the plaintiff's appeal to be frivolous.
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Originating Judge:William E. Lantrip |
Anderson County | Court of Appeals | 02/16/01 |