X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Jackson vs. Jackson
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robinson vs. Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., USA
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Al-Fatlawy vs. Doe and Chicago Insurance Co.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fahey vs. Eldridge
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. Holland, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Gibson vs. Trant, et al
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Wheeler vs. TDOC
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. Hunter
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ann King, et al vs. Danek Medical Inc., et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-01965-C0A-R3-CV
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Darron Smith vs. Ed Mullikin
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Burress vs. Sanders
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Suntheimer vs. Suntheimer
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jones vs. Ewell
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Brown vs. Brown
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Simonton vs. Huff
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Thurman Deshazer vs. Ferrell Paving
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dianne Fisher vs. Isaac Fisher
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Monroe Davis vs. State of Tennessee
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Frankie Pauline Maples vs. Frank Allen Maples
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-1529-COA-R3-CV
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Ronald Stephen Satterfield, vs. Gary Long and Richard M. Smith
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State Auto Ins. Co. vs. Bishop
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky Lee Oldham v. Tennessee Department of Correction
This appeal involves a dispute between an inmate and the Tennessee Department of Correction (“Department”) regarding deductions from the inmate’s trust account to pay the court costs stemming from his criminal conviction. After his inmate grievance proved unsuccessful, the inmate filed a petition for a declaratory order in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a declaration that the Department could not deduct funds from his inmate trust account without a court order. The trial court dismissed the inmate’s petition because it did not state that the inmate had previously sought a declaratory order from the Department. The inmate asserts on this appeal that he should be excused from this requirement because he is undertaking to represent himself and because his grievance was tantamount to a petition for a declaratory order. We affirm the dismissal of the inmate’s complaint in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1 |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |