APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The general partner in a hotel-keeping operation refused to make distributions to the limited partner from the revenues of the venture. The limited partner filed suit against the general partner for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court found that the general partner had breached the partnership agreement, and rendered a partial summary judgment, ordering an immediate distribution to both partners of over $680,000. We affirm.

The captioned defendant, Dr. Wayne Wells, was dismissed by nonsuit and is not involved in this appeal. The remaining defendants have been granted interlocutory appeal from the order of the Trial Judge overruling their motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff, a resident of Texas sued defendants, residents of Texas, for legal malpractice by failing to timely file a claim against the State of Tennessee for damages allegedly incurred in Dickson County, Tennessee. The Trial Court sustained defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

This appeal involves the denial of parole to an inmate serving a twenty-year sentence for aggravated rape. The inmate filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County challenging the Tennessee Board of Parole’s decision. The trial court granted the board’s motion to dismiss. We affirm the dismissal because the inmate’s petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A common-law writ of certiorari cannot be used to review the intrinsic correctness of the parole board’s decision.

The nature of this suit is stated in the complaint as follows: The purpose of this action is to set aside for the benefit of the estate of the said Lonnie Mae Lane the conveyances of the land
hereinafter described, which rendered the said Harvey Wesley Carrick and his estate insolvent and which were fraudulent as to creditors of Harvey Wesley Carrick and his estate.

The defendant Terry R. Farley, has appealed from the final judgment of the Trial Court in a controversy regarding his dealings with his deceased father, Benton James Farley.

This is a suit for wrongful death by suicide allegedly resulting from negligence of the defendant, a psychiatrist. After a jury could not agree upon a verdict, the Trial Judge directed a verdict and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed and presented a single issue as follows:

This is a grandparent's visitation case. Plaintiff, Donna Faye Glover England, is the maternal grandmother of Skylar Piercey, age four. Skylar's natural mother died in December of 1993. Skylar's natural father, Richard Piercey, now refuses to allow England to see Skylar. England filed a petition for grandparent visitation. The trial court dismissed the case based upon the Tennessee Supreme Court decision of Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W. 2d 573 (Tenn. 1993), reasoning that Hawk allows Piercey as the natural father, to deny England the right to see Skylar in the absence of a showing of substantial harm to the child. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Jerry and Nancy Adcock, from the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant/appellee, James F. Witcher.

This appeal arises from a dispute over a will in which a 93-year-old man left his estate to three of his four surviving daughters. The daughter who was not named in her father’s will challenged the validity of the will after her sisters propounded it for probate in the Chancery Court for Trousdale County. The chancery court transferred the case to the Circuit Court for Trousdale County where a jury found in favor of the will. The daughter who contested the will has appealed. We have determined that no reversible error was committed in the circuit court proceeding and, therefore, affirm the circuit court’s judgment and remand the case to the chancery court for further probate proceedings.

This is a divorce case in which Wife appeals the judgment of the trial court regarding, inter alia, the division of marital property and the trial court's allowance of expert testimony.