COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

03A01-9607-CV-00241
03A01-9607-CV-00241
Trial Court Judge: Charles S. Sexton

Howard A. Woods, v. M.T.C. Management and Solomon Management
02A01-9607-CH-00155
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff sued the defendants alleging he was wrongfully evicted from property located at 3211 Ashwood, Memphis, Tennessee. He further alleged that the defendants were in further violation of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act set forth at T.C.A. § 66-28-101 et seq. as follows: § 66-28-501 (noncompliance with rental agreement by landlord); § 66- 28-502 (failure to supply essential services) and § 66-28-504 (unlawful ouster, exclusion, or diminution of service).

Eastera Bell Porter, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next Friend of Jasper D. Porter, Deceased, v. Jesse McGee, M.D., and Methodist Hopsitals of Memphis, Inc. and Mahfuzur Rahman, M.D.
02A01-9509-CV-00204
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert A. Lanier

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion filed by Appellant, Eastera Bell Porter, individually and as surviving spouse and next friend of Jasper D. Porter, deceased, under Rule 60 T.R.C.P., to set aside the summary judgments entered in favor of the appellees, Jesse McGee, M.D. and Methodist Hospitals of Memphis (Methodist). After review of the record, we find an absence of abuse by the trial court in this regard and affirm. We set forth our reasons below.

02A01-9601-CV-00009
02A01-9601-CV-00009

02A01-9601-CV-00009
02A01-9601-CV-00009

Sam Posey, Danny Todd, Billy Chitwood, and Jimmy Porter, v. City of Memphis Tennessee, et al.
02A01-9603-CH-00058
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

The appellants to this action are either current or retired firemen for the Division of Fire Services of Memphis, Tennessee (Division).1 They appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellees, City of Memphis, Tennessee (City), the Division, Dr. W. W. Herenton, Mayor, Westelle Florez, Director of the Division of Personnel, and Charles Smith, Director of the Division, on their action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the appellees’ method of computing pension benefits for those firefighters employed by the City for 30 or more years. After review of the record, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We set forth our reasons below.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

01A01-9606-CV-00284
01A01-9606-CV-00284
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

01A01-9607-CH-00298
01A01-9607-CH-00298
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

01A01-9512-CV-00548
01A01-9512-CV-00548
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

Dept. of Children's Services vs. D.S.
M2000-02380-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Betty Adams Green
The parental rights of the petitioner (Mother) to her child , "R.", born January 29, 1997 during her Mother's incarceration, were terminated upon a finding that statutory grounds therefore were proved by clear and convincing evidence. Weighing very carefully the Mother's constitutional right to care for her child, on the one hand, and the best interests of the child, on the other, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Monica R. Williams, v. Claude Williams
02A01-9604-CV-00088
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer

Claude D. Williams (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to be paid to Monica R. Williams (Wife) at $500 per month for eighteen months. This was a marriage of approximately five years duration. Wife was a junior in college attending school full-time and working two part-time jobs. She testified that her net income was $880 and her expenses $1,507 per month. Husband has an engineering degree and earns approximately $38,000 annually. No children were born to the marriage. Wife was granted the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Huttchson vs. Cole
M1999-00204-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd

01A01-9607-CV-00316
01A01-9607-CV-00316
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

01A01-9608-CH-00371
01A01-9608-CH-00371
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

01A01-9601-CV-00036
01A01-9601-CV-00036
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers

01A01-9607-CH-00336
01A01-9607-CH-00336
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9606-CV-00251
01A01-9606-CV-00251
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

01A01-9606-CV-00251
01A01-9606-CV-00251
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Marilyn L. Green v. Carlos Eugene Green
02A01-9601-CH-00014
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge George R. Ellis

In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Marilyn Green (the “Wife”) a divorce from Carlos Green (the “Husband”) upon the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement, the parties agreed to sell the marital home by auction, pay the remaining indebtedness on the home and divide the proceeds equally. The parties agreed that the Wife would receive a Mercury automobile, a Ford Thunderbird automobile, the furniture, household furnishings and real estate located in the Eaton community. The parties agreed that the Husband would receive the farming equipment, guns, saddles and two pickup trucks. The trial court divided the remainder of the parties’ property and awarded the wife a one-half interest in the Husband’s retirement income and awarded the Husband a one-half interest in the Wife’s retirement income. The court further awarded each party a one-fourth interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and awarded each party a one-sixth interest in twenty acres of corn planted as of the date of the final divorce hearing. The court further ordered that the livestock owned by the parties be sold and the proceeds divided equally. The Husband has appealed the judgment of the trial court arguing that the trial court’s division of property was improper. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the Wife’s interest in a fifty-seven acre tract of land in the Eaton community and affirm as to the Wife’s interest in twenty acres of planted corn.