APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted review in this case to determine whether a court-ordered mental evaluation violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

This action for conversion was submitted to a jury which returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, thereby implicitly finding that the fact-driven principal defense of the Statute of Limitations was not well-taken. Home Federal appeals and presents for review issues which, as paraphrased, question the propriety of the submission of the case to the jury, whether the defense of Statute of Limitations was well-taken, as a matter of law, whether requested jury instructions should have been given and whether the drawer of a check adequately instructed the drawee Bank as to its disposition. Pacific Properties

In this action, plaintiff seeks uninsured motorist coverage from her insurance company, and the Trial Court, responding to motion for summary judgment, granted judgment to defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Plaintiff has appealed.

This case originated as an action to collect monies due under the terms of a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff First Tennessee Bank, National Association. An answer was filed by the defendant admitting the execution of the note and that there was an outstanding balance thereon. He also filed a counterclaim in which he sought a setoff and damages for forged checks drawn on his account and paid by the bank. The trial court on motion of the plaintiff, entered a summary judgment against the defendant on the original complaint and dismissed the counterclaim. A judgment in the amount of $34,399.24 was entered against the defendant. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action arisitn grom a motor vehicle accident, the defendants were granted summary judgment and plaintiffs have appealed.

Crystal M. Trueitt and Carmen Y. Silvels, individually and as mother and next friend of Christopher M. Silvels, a minor,2 appeal jugements rendered in heir favor in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County in the amount of $1,033.36, $1,004.60, and $98.50, respectively.

The controversy presently on appeal attacks a judgment entered in a post-divorce petition for contempt, wherein Linda J. Meador seeks to recover property she contends was awarded he i the divorce decree and to find her fomer husband, Corbin Dale Meador in contempt of court for refusing to deliver the property to her.

The issue on this interlocutory appeal granted pursuant to T. R. A. P. Rule 9, is whether the lease between the parties is too broad to be enforceable, as was held by the Trial Court.

By this appeal Casey Lynn Burgess insists that the Trial Court was in error in dismissing his petition for change of custody of his two children, custody of whom by the divorce decree was awarded to Ms. Welch.

This is a divorce action. The defendant (wife) assertson this appeal, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of the trial. The record reflects that there was a great deal of confusion as to the way and manner the case was set for trial because of the resignation of the former Circuit Judge. The wife's counsel claims to have had no notice of the trial date until the day the case was set for trial. On that date, he applied to the court for a continuance. The court continued the case until the following morning at 7:00 a.m. Prior to the trial, the court allowed the wife's attorney to make a motion for a continuance on the record, with a written motion, to be filed as exhibit No.1. Counsel's affidavit supporting the motion for a continuance was allowed to be filed as exhibit 2.