APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves a petition for increase of child support. Petitioner, Stephen David Scofield (Father), appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to modify the parties’ final decree of divorce to increase child support payments by Respondent, Helen Bond Scofield 2 (Mother).

This matter appears appropriate for consideration pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.1 Defendant-Appellants Sidney and Betsy Feuerstein (“Feuersteins”) appeal the Chancery Court’s order in favor of Plaintiff-Appellees Tyrus Ragland and other neighbors enjoining the Feuersteins from building a greenhouse on their property in violation of a restrictive covenant.

The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Chattanooga schools, appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that Leonard L. Rowe was deprived of liberty without due process of law by a Board policy which renders any employee previously terminated “for cause, inefficiency, or immorality” ineligible for future employment within the Chattanooga school system. The primary issue for our review is whether adoption of Board policy 4117.5 deprived Rowe of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest to which the requirements of procedural due process apply.1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that due process is not implicated because the Board policy did not deprive Rowe of either a protected property or liberty interest. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

The Trial Court granted summary judgement dismissing one of the defendants, Mercantile Properties, Inc., and ordered entry of final partial judgment pursuant to T.R.C.P. Rule 54.02. Plaintiff has appealed. The remaining defendant, Brenda L. Allgood, is not involved in this appeal.

The plaintiff/wife has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court declaring the parties divorced pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-4-129, placing child custody in the wife and awarding child support. The issues on appeal relate only to support.

Richard P. Rienholtz, an inmate in the Tennessee prison system petitioned the Chancery Court of Davidson County for a declaratory judgment arguing that the Department of Correction’s decision to extend his parole eligibility date for escape was illegal. The chancellor dismissed the petition and we affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute as to the obligations of the parties under a lease agreement. The lessor of the premises, James A. Crossman,  terminated the lease after discovering that the lessee, Martin Silva, had experienced problems with violence and other criminal activities at the previous location of his nightclub. Silva filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking damages for breach of the lease contract. The trial court heard the case without a jury and awarded damages to Silva. Crossman has appealed and argues that the trial court erred in failing to find grounds for rescission of the lease and in awarding damages to Silva. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment.

Kevin Mosley, a prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction, was twice considered for parole. On each occasion the Parole Board declined to release him, citing as its reason the seriousness of his offense. Mr. Mosley filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Chancery Court of Davidson County, contending that he was entitled to a more definite statement of the Parole Board’s reasons. The prisoner also argued that the Board erred in failing to consider the results of a psychological study it had ordered. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial court.

This is an appeal by plaintiff/appellant, Mary Alice Bolton Prince, from the decision of the trial court granting the motions for summary judgment of defendants/appellees. The trial court based its decision on its finding that Mrs. Prince was fiftypercent or more at fault. The facts out of which this controversy arose are as follows.