Alvin Featherstone vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Johnny Davis
|
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lewis vs. State
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Waller vs. State
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court | ||
02A01-9705-CV-00103
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Mark Grimes
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. William Hunt
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Marvin Matthews
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Burton Welch
|
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Blanton
|
Supreme Court | ||
Throneberry Properties et al vs. Allen
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Rhoden vs. Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah v. Peltz,
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Wallace vs. Wallace
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors vs. Nashville Lodging
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01A01-9712-CH-00743
|
Pickett | Court of Appeals | |
Turner vs. Donal Campbell et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Williams vs. Williams
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Logan vs. Logan
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Logan vs. Logan
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Baxter Neal Helson, v. Leticia Finley Cyrus
The issues in this appeal involve the lower court's order incorporating (1) a provision that a nine-year-old child did not have to visit with his father against this (the child's) wishes and (2) a provision that the mother was to arrange a private phone call between the child and his father once a week. We revers the order with respect to visitation. Otherwise we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Taurys Walls
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joel Summers vs. Lisa Summers
|
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Lucy L. Bond v. Belle Meade Fund Partners v. Belle Meade Fund Partners, Branch Property L.P., Branch Property, Ltd. Partnership
The plaintiff sued for injury suffered when she stepped into a hole in the asphalt surface of a parking lot provided for customers of Kroger Company. Kroger was dismissed by nonsuit, and the remaining defendants were dismissed by summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed and presented the following issue: I. Whether a genuine issue of material fact has been raised by the plaintiff/appellant, so as to warrant this cause to be tried on its merits. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |