Please enter some keywords to search.
| Consumer Advocate Division, v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Nashville Gas Company
01A01-9708-BC-00391
This petition under Rule 12, Tenn. R. App. Proc., to review a rate making order of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority presents a host of procedural and substantive issues. We affirm the agency order.
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
|
Court of Appeals | 07/01/98 | ||
| W. Hudson Connery, Jr. et al., v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, et al.
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Twenty former employees of “HealthTrust,” a ____________ sued HealthTrust and its “successor in interest,” Columbia Health Care Corporation, to recover share of stock (or the value thereof) which they had purchased with earned bonuses and for the value of shares of stock due some of the plaintiffs due them upon discharge. Two of the plaintiffs nonsuited, leaving eighteen.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Originating Judge:Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 07/01/98 | |
| Shelley Sackett v. Hal Roseman
M2002-00587-COA-R9-CV
This interlocutory appeal was brought to determine whether the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Joint Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge:Muriel Robinson |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 06/30/98 | |
| Henry Collier vs. Methodist Hosp., et al
02A01-9607-CV-00165
Originating Judge:Dick Jerman, Jr. |
Haywood County | Court of Appeals | 06/30/98 | |
| 02A01-9707-CH-00157
02A01-9707-CH-00157
Originating Judge:W. Michael Maloan |
Obion County | Court of Appeals | 06/30/98 | |
| Bradson Mercantile vs. Joseph Crabtree
02A01-9710-CV-00272
|
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 06/30/98 | |
| King vs. King
03A01-9710-CH-00441
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/98 | ||
| Connatser vs. Connatser
03A01-9801-CV-00005
|
Court of Appeals | 06/29/98 | ||
| Moore vs. Feathers
03A01-9802-CV-00063
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| Judd's vs. Muir
03A01-9801-CH-00002
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| Wilhoite vs. Proffitt
03A01-9801-CH-00004
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| Kellogg Co., vs. TN Comm., et al
02A01-9612-CH-00302
Originating Judge:C. Neal Small |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | |
| Sanjurjo vs. Woods
03A01-9708-CH-00330
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| Fye vs. Kennedy
03A01-9707-CV-00287
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | |
| 03A01-9712-CV-00532
03A01-9712-CV-00532
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| City of Knox vs. Garuin
03A01-9801-CV-00038
|
Court of Appeals | 06/26/98 | ||
| Canonie vs. Tennessee
03A01-9710-CH-00481
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| Roach vs. Renfro
03A01-9711-CH-00517
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| 3A01-9801-CH-00034
3A01-9801-CH-00034
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| 3A01-9801-CV-00033
3A01-9801-CV-00033
|
Sevier County | Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | |
| Hankins vs. Seaton
03A01-9710-CV-00468
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| Atkins vs. Grooms
03A01-9708-JV-00337
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| Eblen vs. Johnson
03A01-9709-CH-00423
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| Purkey vs. Purkey
03A01-9707-CV-00317
|
Court of Appeals | 06/25/98 | ||
| Stone vs. Stone
M1997-00218-COA-R3-CV
This appeal involves a former spouse's efforts to extricate himself from the spousal support obligations contained in a marital dissolution agreement. Approximately one year after the entry of the divorce decree approving the agreement, the former husband requested the Chancery Court for Putnam County to set the agreement aside because he did not have independent legal advice and his judgment was impaired by antidepressant medication when he signed the agreement. The trial court modified portions of the decree but did not relieve the former husband of his spousal support obligation. Thereafter, the former husband filed a second motion seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations because of his former wife's improved financial circumstances. The trial court again declined to relieve the former husband of his obligation to pay spousal support. On this appeal, the former husband renews his argument that he should no longer be required pay spousal support because of his former wife's improved financial circumstance and his own weakened financial condition. We affirm the trial court's decision that the former husband has failed to prove the existence of a substantial, material change in circumstances that would warrant modifying his spousal support obligation.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Vernon Neal |
Putnam County | Court of Appeals | 06/23/98 |