Ramond Gregory v. Laura Sue Gregory - Concurring
This appeal involves a suit to determine ownership of an 18.5 acre tract of land located in Lincoln County, Tennessee. The facts are as follows. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Herbert Adams v. Robert Sims and Patricia Sims
This case came to be considered by the Court upon a grant of a Rule 9 application for permission to appeal an interlocutory Order of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education
This is an appeal from a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favorof the defendants - appellees and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Carl Nelson v. Harold Eugene Martin & Jack W. Gammon - Concurring
This case arises from the termination of appellant, Carl Nelson, as employee, officer and director of B & M Printing Company. The pertinent facts are as follows: In 1968, Nelson, together with appellees, Harold E. Martin and Jack W. Gammon, formed a partnership named B & M Printing Company for the purpose of engaging in the commercial printing business. In 1969, the three partners converted the partnership into a corporation and were issued 100 shares each of the corporation's stock. There were no other shareholders in the corporation. Nelson, Gammon and Martin were all employed by the corporation and acted as the corporation's only officers and directors. The presidency of the corporation was initially rotated between the three parties every year, but at the time of Nelson's termination, Martin was the president and had been for several years. The parties received no compensation for their duties as officers and directors, but did receive salaries, commissions based on individual sales, and bonuses as employees of the corporation. In addition, the parties received rent money from the corporation through their partnership, BCJ Enterprises, which owned the property on which B & M Printing Company was located |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9507-CH-00316
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9508-CV-00378
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9509-CV-00405
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Roy Baines vs. Wilson County
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9507-JV-00246
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9508-CH-00293
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9509-CH-00314
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9510-CH-00357
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9510-CV-00365
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9410-CH-00230
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9410-CH-00230
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jane Doe and Mother A., Jane Doe C and Father C., v. Coffee County Board of Education, Joe Brandon, Bobby Cummings, Nelson Johnson, Marianne Brandon
This is a suit by two high school students and their parents seeking damages resulting from alleged assaults by a high school coach. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Penny Campbell, et al., v. Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, et al.
This appeal involves a constitutional challenge under the Tennessee Constitution to Tennessee's Homosexual Practices Act, T.C.A. § 39-13-510 (1991). On May 26, 1993, plaintiffs Penny Campbell, John Doe, Jane Doe, James Tallent, and Christopher Simien,1 filed a "Verified Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, against defendants Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee,2 Charles W. Burson, Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, and Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General for Davidson County, each in his official capacity. The complaint, as amended, seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-14-101, et seq., (1980) that the Homosexual Practices Act (HPA),acriminal law, violates plaintiffs' right to privacy under Article I, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, and 27 of the Tennessee Constitution and their right to equal protection of the laws under Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the enforcement of the HPA. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9508-CV-00252
|
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9508-CV-00256
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Greene | Court of Appeals |