APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant-Appellant, Mickey Dwayne Burleson (“Father”), appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his petition to modify the child custody provisions of the parties’ final divorce decree.

The City of Knoxville appeals judgments rendered in favor of Elmer Richardson, surviving spouse of Goldie H. Richardson, for personal injuries received by him and the wrongful death of his wife in the amount of $30,000, and $130,000, respectively.

The mother and father lived together in Michigan for approximately fifteen (15) years but were never married. They had a daughter, Cnanah, now seven (7) years of age.

In this post-divorce proceeding, Kafait U. Malik (“husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment ordering him to cash out and/or borrow against his pension and retirement funds in order to satisfy the court’s prior distribution of marital property to Susan K. Malik (“wife”).

This is an appeal by plaintiff/appellant, Jeannie Farrow, from two orders of the trial court which granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendant/appellee, Charles F. Barnett, M.D. (“Dr. Barnett”), and the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant/appellee, Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center (“the Medical Center”). In its orders, the trial court concluded that plaintiff failed to file her action within the applicable statute of limitations. The facts out of which this controversy arose are as follows.

The Tennessee Public Service Commission ordered the completion of a previously authorized investigation of the future earnings of BellSouth Telecommunications, despite legislative developments that stripped the Commission of its authority to use such an investigation to set telephone rates. BellSouth filed a petition with this court for review of the PSC’s order, arguing that completion of the investigation was inconsistent with the legislative purpose. We reverse the Commission’s order and remand the case for further consideration by the Tennessee Regulatory Commission.

I fully concur in Judge Cantrell's opinion. I have read with much interest Judge Koch's dissenting opinion. The matters set forth in the dissenting opinion might make good public policy, but the setting of public policy is not a matter for this court or any court in Tennessee.

Walter Everett died in 1993; his children Marion Everett Barton and Gerald Joseph Everett were substituted as plaintiffs in place of their father. In this contest of the will of the deceased, Joseph Everett, a jury returned special verdicts that the deceased did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a valid will, and Joseph Robert Everett, Deceased, was unduly influenced by Ralph Everett on March 11 to the extent that such influence amounted to coercion, destroying the free will of the deceased and substituting his will for the deceased and compelling the deceased to make a disposition he otherwise would not have made.

Michael Scott Evans is seeking nothing more than to acknowledge his parental responsibilities to Jacob Ryan Steelman. The majority, however, has decided that he is not entitled to prove in court that he is the boy’s biological father simply because the child’s mother was married to another man when he was born. This decision rests squarely on an erroneous judicial interpretation of Tennessee’s legitimation statutes. Rather than perpetuating injustice, our responsibility as common law judges is to remedy, not ignore, plain judicial mistakes.

The Defendant, John Namdi Anene appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Hamilton County granting Victoria Ngozi Anene's petition for divorce and awarding her custody of their three minor children. Mr. Anene raises five issues on appeal, two of which are jurisdictional. (See appendix.) As to the jurisdictional issues, we find that the Circuit Court of Hamilton was correct in assuming jurisdiction to hear both the divorce and custody issues. We find the remainint issues to be without merit.

This is a child custody case. Appellant Marla Perry sought to move out of state with the minor children of her previous marriage. In response, Appellee Ronnie Perry filed a petition seeking a change in custody. The trial court held that custody would be changed in the event that the mother moved out state. We reverse, based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Aaby v. Strange, 924 S.W.2d 623 (Tenn. 1996).

We are called upon in this appeal to determine whether relying on the advice of an attorney in filing an unfounded will contest constitutes probable cause sufficient to avoid the enforcement of a forfeiture clause in the will. For the reasons set forth below, we find that such reliance does constitute probable cause, and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The single issue in this case is whether a remote purchaser of a home may maintain a negligence action against the builder of the home despite a lack of contractual privity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and this appeal resulted. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

In this case, Plaintiff-Appellant, Teri Michelle Parker (Wife), appeals the trial court’s decision to award custody of the parties' child, Dylan Ken Parker, to Defendant-Appellee, Richard Ken Parker (Husband), alleging that the custody determination was based on the effects of racial prejudice. We affirm the trial court’s award of custody to Husband.

In this appeal we are asked to re-visit the question of whether a man who fathers a child by a married woman may legitimate the child. The Davidson County Juvenile Court held that the legitimation statute allowing a putative father to legitimate a child “not born in lawful wedlock” applied only to children born to unmarried women. If that interpretation holds, the appellant attacks the constitutionality of the statute on due process and equal protection grounds. We affirm the lower court’s interpretation of the statute and reject the appellant’s contention that the statute is constitutionally defective.

In this action asking damages for alleged retaliatory discharge, the Trial Court granted employer summary judgment, and plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.

These consolidated cases arise from the efforts of appellants, Lewis Laska and John Jay Hooker, to have their names placed on the ballot for the August 1, 1996, statewide election to the office of Supreme Court  Justice. The deadline for filing nominating petitions for this election was 12:00 noon on May 16, 1996, in accordance with T.C.A. § 2-5-101.

This appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court which, among other things, awarded a divorce to the defendant, provided for custody of the parties' minor children and made a division of the marital estate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Joy Badenhope is the child of Susan Badenhope and Arthur Blair.  Susan Badenhope, a resident of North Carolina, died when the child was less than one year old.  After her death, Joy began residing with her maternal grandmother, Marilyn Badenhope, in Tennessee.  The grandmother was granted custody by a North Carolina court in an action for custody she filed some two months after the mother's death.  The father soon thereafter moved to Tennessee and filed an action in Tennessee to increase visitation and attain custody.

In this divorce action the Trial Court awarded to each party an absolute divorce from the other on the grounds of  inappropriate marital conduct. The Court awarded the custody of the parties' two minor children to the mother, ordered the father to pay child support and based upo the guidelihes, and in dividing the parties' marital estate  concluded that their home was a gift from the husband's paretns to him alone, and therefore separate property. From this latter determination, the wife has appealed.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the Chancellor found that certain assets owned by Albert Chadwell at the time of the parties' divorce were marital assets and that his former wife, Fay Louise Taylor Chadwell, was entitled to a judgment against him of $94,320, which included the interest from the date of the divorce. The Chancellor also impressed a lien against certain real estate originally owned by Mr. Chadwell, who later purported to transfer an interest to his present wife. Both the real estate and the home Mr. Chadwell erected thereon were paid for in part with the assets in dispute in this appeal.

The defendant, Brian K. Collins, was convicted of violating a habitual traffic offender order, violation of registration, and evading arrest. He was sentenced as a range one offender to two years for violating the order, thirty days for violation of registration, and eleven months and twenty nine days for evading arrest, all to be served concurrently. This is his appeal of right.

In this action for damages for personal injuries to the deceased, the complaint alleged the deceased was placed in a room while in defendant hospital, and on April 18, 1991, she ws found lying on the floor with injuries about her head and face. It was further alleged that it was not learned until wll after her death, in conversation with the physicians of the plaintiff decedent, that the decedent more likely would have survived for many years had she not fallen...

The appellant, John Russell Turner, appeals from his conviction by a jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The Circuit Court of Blount County sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the county jail and suspended all but five days. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support a conviction, because the State failed to prove that he intended to operate a vehicle.