X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Sherry Denise Thearp Ervin, v. Dale Edward Ervin
This is an appeal from a Final Decree of Divorce entered January 5, 1996. Plaintiff, Sherry Denise Thearp Ervin (Wife), appeals from the order of the trial court granting her an absolute divorce from the defendant, Dale Edward Ervin (Husband). 1 In her first issue, Wife argues that the trial court should have awarded her the parties’ ski boat. We will consider this assertion with the second issue. 2 Wife appeals the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the marital property, the amount of child support, and the denial of an award of attorneys’ fees. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9605-CH-00218
|
Court of Appeals | ||
P. 54.04(2); See Lock v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 809 S.W.2D 483, 490 (Tenn.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Driber vs. Physicians Health Care
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James P. Mitchell, v. James Davenport, Commissioner of the Departmentof Employment Security of the State of Tennessee, Noma Outdoor Products, Inc.
In this unemployment compensation case, James Mitchell (“Mitchell”) filed a claim 2 for unemployment compensation with the Tennessee Department of Employment Security (“TDES”). TDES approved Mitchell’s claim, and Mitchell’s employer, NOMA Outdoor Products, Inc. (“NOMA”), appealed TDES’ claim approval. On appeal, the Appeals Tribunal ruled that Mitchell was not eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2) due to work-connected misconduct and declared that the $1,190.00 in unemployment benefits that Mitchell had previously received was an overpayment. Mitchell thereafter requested that TDES waive his $1,190.00 overpayment pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(d)(2). The Appeals Tribunal denied Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment, and Mitchell appealed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal to the Board of Review. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and decision of the Appeals Tribunal and denied Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment. Mitchell thereafter filed a petition to rehear which was denied by the Board of Review. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-304(i), Mitchell filed a petition for certiorari in chancery court seeking judicial review of the Board’s decision. The chancery court dismissed Mitchell’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Board of Review, denying Mitchell’s request for a waiver of the overpayment. Mitchell appeals from the order of the chancery court arguing that the chancery court erred in admitting additional evidence and erred in not vacating or setting aside the decision of the Board of Review. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
William Thomas Winchester, v. Glenda Rachelle Winchester
This is a child custody case. The trial court awarded Appellant William Thomas Winchester (“Husband”) and Appellee Glenda Rachelle Winchester (“Wife”) joint custody of the minor child of the marriage, which both parties appeal. We vacate the trial court’s award of joint custody and remand the case to the trial court to conduct further findings of fact concerning each party’s comparative fitness and to award custody to either Husband or Wife. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny Glenn Hilliard v. Misty Lynn Hilliard and Terry Minton - Concurring
Johnny Glenn Hilliard (Father) appeals from the order of the trial court granting visitation rights to his son’s maternal grandmother. Father and Misty Lynn Hilliard (now Schrems) (Mother) married in 1992. Alexander Glenn Hilliard (Alex) was born in May 1993. The parents divorced in January, 1995 and temporary custody1 was awarded to Terry Minton, the maternal grandmother. At that time, Mother was living with her mother, Terry Minton. Mother currently resides in Florida with her present husband. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Jonthan Hyler v. Charles Traughber, Chairman Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
The captioned petitioner has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles denying hisapplication for parole from the custody of the Department of Correction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Kindall v. Jim H. Rose - Concurring
The captioned petitioner, an inmate of an institution operated by a private contractor for the Tennessee Department of Correction, has appealed from the summary dismissal of his petition for certiorari for review of disciplinary actions of the defendants. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Tina R. Guffey vs. Wenco of Shelbyville, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's Restaurant - Concurring
This is a “slip and fall case” in which the jury awarded $173,250, and the defendant appealed. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Larry Turnbo vs. Brenda Jane (Thompson) Turnbo
The defendant/appellee has filed a respectful petition to rehear. It appears that a rehearing is appropriate, and same is hereby granted. |
Court of Appeals | ||
City Bank & Trust Company and B. Timothy Pirtle, v. Dave Allen Webb and Debbie Lynn Webb
This is an appeal by defendants Dave Allen Webb and wife Debbie Lynn Webb, from the trial court's judgment setting aside a foreclosure sale and, in effect, putting the parties in the same position they were in before the foreclosure. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Nathan Jack Toler, a minor child, B/N/F Shirley Lack and Shirley Lack next of kin and as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan Jack Toler, Jr., v. City of Cookeville, D/B/A Cookeville General Hospital, et al.
Appellee, Dr. Mark Giese, is one of several defendants involved in a medical malpractice suit arising out of the alleged wrongful death of Nathan Jackson Toler, Jr. The trial court entered an interlocutory order granting summary judgment to Dr. Giese based upon the plaintiffs' failure to properly secure service of process on him. Pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9, Plaintiffs have appealed. We have determined that the trial court was correct and therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
James Fletcher and Ronald Lanier Fletcher v. Kenneth Sterlin Vasser
The holder of an easement across his neighbor’s property sought to replace two gates with cattle guards. The Chancery Court of Coffee County denied the request. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Vickie Elaine Spiegel, v. Jeremy Percy Julian Spiegel
The issues on appeal in this divorce case include the restrictions put on the father’s visits with his minor daughter and the award of attorneys fees to the mother. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Gatlin, v. State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services, In the Matter of Felicia Gatlin, a child under the age of 18
The Juvenile Court of Davidson County terminated Barbara Gatlin’s parental rights respecting her ten year old daughter, Felicia. Because we find that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mavis A. Combs, v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the Civil Service Commission
This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Mavis A. Combs, from the decision of the Davidson County Chancery Court upholding the decision of respondent/appellee, the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission (“the Commission”), to deny Ms. Combs in-line-of-duty injury leave. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mohammad Al-Haddad v. Walter Ritter and Wife, Helma Ritter
Pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Civ. P., the trial court sanctioned the appellants and their attorneys. The appellants argue on appeal that they cannot be sanctioned under Rule 11 because they did not sign the offending pleading and that the facts do not establish a violation of the rule. We hold that a party may be sanctioned under Rule 11 without actually signing the pleadings, but we find that the facts of this case do not justify a Rule 11 sanction and that the proof fails to show any expenses incurred as a result of the alleged violation. Therefore we reverse the judgment against the appellants for sanctions. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Carol Croslin and Phyllis Croslin Baker, v. Danny Keith Croslin, wife Betty Jean Croslin and Stanley Gardner Haskins
This is an adoption case. Petitioners, Amanda Croslin and Phyllis Croslin Baker, the adoptive child’s mother and maternal grandmother respectively, filed a petition to set aside the adoption of the child, Danna Elisabeth Croslin, by the maternal grandfather, Danny Keith Croslin, and his wife, Betty Jean Croslin. Also named as a defendant in the petition is Stanley Gardner Haskins, the adoptive child’s natural father. From the order of the trial court nullifying and setting aside the adoption, Danny Keith Croslin has appealed. Mr. Haskins did not file any pleading in the trial court and is not a party to this appeal. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
Aetna Insurance Company and Church of God of Prophecy, v. Little Giant Mfg. Co., Inc. and Edwin L. Wiegand Division of Emerson Electric Company
This complaint was filed by the Church of God of Prophecy against the Little Giant Mfg. Co. and Kick-Shaw, Inc., alleging that its property was destroyed by fire caused by a defective water heater manufactured by Little Giant and sold to the plaintiff by Kick-Shaw, Inc. Various defenses were interposed by the defendants, none of which is relevant to the issue before us. Thereafter, the complaint was repeatedly amended; new parties came and went; and, in its present posture, the plaintiffs are Aetna Insurance Company and Church of God of Prophecy and the defendants are Little Giant Mfg. Co., Inc. and Emerson Electric Company. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services v. Charlene Avery Fountain
This appeal came on to be heard upon the record from the Juvenile Court of Knox County and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. Upon consideration thereof, this court is of the opinion that there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
This appeal is taken from the trial court’s order of June 7, 1995, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Service Merchandise Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “Service Merchandise”). Specifically, the trial court found that there was no proof of a dangerous condition created by Service Merchandise and no proof that Service Merchandise had either actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed. Upon consideration of the record before us, the trial court’s order is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty, v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
The majority holds that the plaintiff cannot establish constructive notice. I am constrained to agree. However, I invite our Supreme Court to revisit this area of law. |
Court of Appeals |
