APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves a dispute between neighbors over a sewer line. The Defendant, Marilyn Hill, appeals the trial court’s finding of an easement by  implication in favor of the Plaintiff, Joanne Barrett, across Ms. Hill’s property for the purpose of connecting Ms. Barrett’s property to the city sewer line. We affirm the trial court.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s affirmance, in a writ of certiorari action, of a decision of the Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals interpreting and applying provisions of the Williamson County Zoning Ordinance. The Appellant, Mr. Brunetti, is a neighbor of Mr. Brian Sanders, and objects to the operation of two grain bins (sometimes referred to as silos) on Mr. Sanders’s 5-acre parcel in Williamson County, which is zoned “Estate.” The Board of Zoning Appeals interpreted state statute and local  ordinance to allow this “agricultural” use. We affirm.

Defendants Jimmy C. Grisham, d/b/a Germantown Pest Control, Germantown Termite and Pest Control, Inc., and Christopher D. Alexander appeal the trial court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of  Plaintiff/Appellee Catherine Edmundson in the amount of $50,000. We  affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Donald Ray Stacey (Husband) appeals an order modifying the terms of the parties’ final decree of divorce. After almost twenty-eight years of marriage, the parties were divorced on July 6, 1995. The final decree was subsequently amended on July 14, 1995, to require Husband to pay attorney’s fees to Kevin Kathleen Stacey (Wife). Three children were born during the course of the marriage, but only one child, Zachary, was still a minor at the time of the couple’s divorce. Pursuant to the Amended Final Decree of Divorce (amended final decree), Wife was granted sole custody of the minor child with Husband having reasonable visitation. Husband was ordered to pay $1,300.00 in child support per month plus the Child Support Guidelines amount of 21% of his annual bonus up to a total gross income of $9,900.00 (bonus and base salary).

The Mixes and the Millers are owners of adjacent pieces of real property. In this boundary line dispute, the trial court (1) determined the boundary line that divides the parties’ properties, (2) awarded damages to the Millers for certain timber that had been removed from the disputed property by the Mixes, (3) denied the parties’ motions to alter, modify, or amend its judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial, (4) denied the Millers’ motion for discretionary costs, and (5) denied the Mixes’ motion to re-open the proof. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

Steven Cobb appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint against Charles Wilson, Evelyn Scallions, and Steve Vaughn. The complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of Cobb’s rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Defendant Vanderbilt Industrial Contracting Corporation (VICC) appeals the trial court’s judgments which awarded attorney’s fees to two of VICC’s co-defendants in this lawsuit, Kajima International, Inc., and Titan Contracting and Leasing Company. We reverse the trial court’s judgments based upon our conclusion that the relief awarded exceeds the scope of the relief requested by the parties’ pleadings.

Sherrod Jackson, Robert Williams, Nathaniel Williams, Mike Williams, Shirley Blalock, and Steven Craig Cooper (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the Chancery Court of Shelby County, which granted a temporary injunction, enjoining the Appellants from permitting “lap dancing” and from permitting employees or independent contractors from engaging in “lewd and obscene exhibition of genitals.”

This litigation originated when the Town of Huntsville (“Huntsville”) and Stanlodge, LLC (“Stanlodge”), filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 1101 of the Public Acts of 1998. The plaintiffs specifically contest Section 9(f)(3)1 of Chapter 1101, which permits certain territoriesto hold incorporation elections even though these territories do not satisfy the minimum requirements for such elections as set forth in the general law. See T.C.A. § 6-1-201 (1998). On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Section 9(f)(3) is constitutional. Huntsville and Stanlodge appeal, raising   five issues: