02A01-9509-CV-00207
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9511-CH-00255
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9509-CH-00303
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9510-CH-00347
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9502-CH-00030
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9502-CV-00018
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9502-CV-00024
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9601-CH-00030
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-CH-00481
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-JV-00474
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9510-JV-00479
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9502-CH-00025
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9506-JV-00262
|
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9508-CH-00365
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9509-CH-00318
|
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Steven Denbow, v. Sandra Kay Denbow
This is a domestic relations case with an unusual twist. On May 3, 1994, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Chester County seeking a divorce from defendant on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. At the same time, plaintiff filed a marital dissolution agreement (“agreement”) executed by the parties on May 2, 1994. The agreement provided that the parties would have joint custody of their two minor children, then ages 13 and 15, with the children residing with plaintiff. No child support was to be paid by either party. In addition, the agreement did not make any allowances for alimony and purported to divide the real and personal property between the parties. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time the parties executed the agreement, but defendant was not. Shortly thereafter, defendant employed counsel and on June 3, 1994, filed a motion to set aside the agreement. In her motion defendant contended that she was forced to sign the agreement under duress and fear of bodily harm. She also contended that the agreement did not adequately provide for the care and maintenance of the parties’ minor children or make an equitable settlement of the 2 parties’ property as required by T.C.A. § 36-4-103(b) (1991). Defendant’s motion asked the court to set the agreement aside and allow the parties to proceed with the divorce as if the agreement had never been executed. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
Joyce Ann Neal, Individually and as parent and next of kin of the minor child, Brandon Devoris Neal, v. Fayette County Board of Education, Dale Summitt, et al.
This matter arose out of a personal injury action brought against Fayette County 2 Board of Education by plaintiff, Joyce Ann Neal, as parent and next of kin of Brandon Neal, a minor. Brandon, age eleven, was injured while playing basketball when his finger became caught in the goal. Reasoning that the goal was neither dangerous nor defective and that Brandon caused his own injuries through his misuse of the goal, the trial court held in favor of the school board. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that the goal was not dangerous or defective. Plaintiff further alleges that the trial court erred in failing to find that the school board was negligent. For the reasons stated below, we find these contentions to be without merit; therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Waymon Frederick Axley, v. Beverly Anne Mallette Axley
After a thirty year marriage,1 Waymon Frederic Axley (Husband) and Beverly Anne Mallette Axley (Wife) were divorced by final decree entered by the trial court in August 1994.2 This appeal concerns the trial court’s award to Wife of $1,500 per month as alimony in futuro and, as additional alimony, $177.62 per month for 36 consecutive months to continue Wife on Husband’s health insurance through his employer. Wife seeks an increase in the award as well as her attorney’s fees for services rendered in this appeal. She frames the issues as follows: I. Did the trial judge err by awarding Wife only $1,500 per month in periodic alimony? II. Should this Court remand this matter to the trial court with the instruction to set a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for this appeal? |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Waymon Frederic Axley, v. Beverly Anne Mallette Axley
After a thirty year marriage,1 Waymon Frederic Axley (Husband) and Beverly Anne Mallette Axley (Wife) were divorced by final decree entered by the trial court in August 1994.2 This appeal concerns the trial court’s award to Wife of $1,500 per month as alimony in futuro and, as additional alimony, $177.62 per month for 36 consecutive months to continue Wife on Husband’s health insurance through his employer. Wife seeks an increase in the award as well as her attorney’s fees for services rendered in this appeal. She frames the issues as follows: |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Terry T. Johnson, v. Michael H. McCommon & MLG & W
This action was brought against Michael McCommon and Memphis Light, Gas, and 2 Water (MLG&W) for personal injuries sustained when McCommon, an employee of MLG&W, struck plaintiff with his vehicle. McCommon was dismissed from the suit prior to trial. Following a bench trial, the lower court held that plaintiff's negligence was greater than that of the defendant and that plaintiff proximately caused her own injuries. Because we do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination, we affirm the judgment dismissing plaintiff's case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson, v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate of Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased.
The captioned executrix has appealed from a non-jury judgment of the Chancery Court that a will dated April 6, 1989 is the true, whole and last will and testament of Jennie Mai Jackson, deceased. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Oak Highlands Homeowners' Association, Inc., v. Continental Development and Construction, Inc. and Nicholas S. Psillas
The captioned plaintiff has appealed from the non-jury dismissal of its suit to enforce restrictions and has presented the following issues for review: |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Frank R. Dalton v. Tennessee Board of Paroles - Concurring
This appeal involves a prison inmate’s efforts to be paroled. After the Tennessee Board of Paroles declined to parole him, the inmate filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking review of the board’s decision. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the inmate appealed to this court. We have determined that the board has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Harlan White, v. State of Tennessee, Department of Correction
This is an appeal by petitioner, Harlan White, from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for declaratory judgment on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Arnold v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al., - Concurring
The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review the Parole Board’s denial of parole. We affirm because we find that the petition in the lower court does not contain any allegations which show that the Board acted illegally, arbitrarily, or in excess of its jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
