X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9607-JV-00234
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9608-CH-00247
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. TN. Dept. of Correction & Campbell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. TN. Dept. of Correction & Campbell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ulrich vs. Ulrich
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Lovell & Malone vs. Commonwealth Life Ins.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9608-CH-00352
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Almany vs. Christie
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Frank Collier Auction & Realty Co. vs. Rice, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Waste Management vs. South Central Bell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Waste Management vs. South Central Bell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Brian Wolney and wife, Melissa Wolney, v. Lisa M. Emmons and Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation
This is a suit for damages brought by Plaintiff Brian Wolney (“Wolney”), with his wife Melissa Wolney, against Defendants Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation (“WFA”) and Lisa M. Emmons (“Emmons”). Wolney sued for personal injuries he sustained in an accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Emmons, but owned by WFA. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of WFA, finding that Wolney’s tort claim against WFA was barred because Wolney was WFA’s statutory employee. The Wolneys appeal the grant of partial summary judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Wolney and wife, Melissa Wolney v. Lisa M. Emmons and Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation
The petition for rehearing filed in behalf of the Appellants is denied. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Ikie Briggs, v. Estate of Odessa v. Briggs
This is a will construction case. Respondent, Ikie Briggs, appeals from the order of the probate court construing the Last Will and Testament of Odessa V. Briggs in favor of the petitioner, Frances Duncan Briggs. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Chidester and wife, Kathleen Chidester v. L. D. Elliston, O.D.
In this medical malpractice action, the Plaintiffs, Joseph and Kathleen Chidester, 2 filed suit against the Defendant, Dr. L. D. Elliston, for failing to diagnose the Plaintiff’s malignant tumor. The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment holding that the Plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the one year statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs’ have appealed the trial court’s order arguing that the statute of limitations does not bar this action because the Plaintiffs’ cause of action did not accrue until the Plaintiff’s malignancy recurred. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
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 | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
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 |
