APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiffs, Shoney's Inc., and Shoney's of Canada, Inc., have appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing their suit against the defendants, Chic Can Enterprises, Ltd., Little Caesars Pizza of Alberta, Inc., and Gen Group, Incorporated for lack of personal jurisdiction of said defendants.

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce in which the issues presented on appeal by defendant-appellant are:
I. The Trial Court erred in reducing valuation of the wife's civil service retirement pension by hypothetical social security benefits.
II. The Trial Court erred in awarding the parties' marital interest in annuities to their adult daughter in trust.
The plaintiff-appellee presents a third issue as follows:
III. The Trial Court erred in failing to adjust the distribution between husband and wife to equalize the tax effect on any unrealized gain on stocks.

This is a premises liability action. The case was tried before a jury to the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, the defendants moved for a directed verdict which was granted. Judgment ws entered in favor of the defendants. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a premises liability action. The case was tried before a jury to the conclusion of the plaintiffs' proof. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' proof, the defendants moved for a directed verdict which was granted. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. This appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Plaintiff, Debra White, appeals an order of summary judgment entered in favor of the Defendant, Bill Sharp. Ms. White sought damages she suffered as a result of a dog bite. The suit was brought against Mr. Sharp, the owner of the premises where the dog was kept, and his tenants, Robin Merritt and Judy Merritt, the owners of the dog. A voluntary non-suit ws taken as to Mr. Merritt and adefault judgment ws entered against Mrs. Merritt.

This is an extraordinary appeal in the most literal sense of the word. The appellant prevailed in the trial court, but nevertheless, as appealed claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to consolidate this action with another action relating to the same subject matter pending in the same court.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tennessee Claims Commission wherein the commissioner determined that the occurrences at issue constituted a taking of property by the State of Tennessee rather than a nuisance. The commissioner concluded that the exclusive remedy for a taking is an inverse condemnation action pursuant to T.C. A. § 29-16-123. Since actions predicated on inverse condemnation are outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission, the commissioner dismissed the claim. This appeal resulted. We reverse the judgment of the commissioner.

Dee Ann Curtis Gallaher appeals that portion of a divorce decree entered by the Chancery Court for Meigs County which granted her husband, Calvin Edward Gallaher, custody of their four-year old daughter.

This appeal involves a juvenile court proceeding for child support. Petitioner, Susan Rier Metrolis (Mother), filed a petition against Timothy William Rier (Father) on October 28, 1993, seeking past, present, and future support for their two minor children, Crystal and Lisa. The petition requests that "the respondent should be ordered to contribute toward the support of said children according to the respondent's means and the needs of said children and reimburse the petitioner for the expenses of rearing the children with the respondent's assistance."

Appellant, James E. Blount, III, appeals from the judgment of the Shelby County Circuit Court holding him in criminal contempt on two separate accounts and imposing sentence.

In this divorce action, Brett Paul Johnson (Husband) has appealed the trial court's ruling that Husband was not entitled to rehabilitative alimony and attorney fees from Lea Anne Johnson (Wife).

This appeal involves a divorce in which the husband has been incarcerated throughout the marriage. After approximately four years of marriage, both the wife and the husband filed suit for divorce in the Circuit Court for Coffee County. Following a bench trial attended only by the wife, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds that the husband was incarcerated and that his conviction had rendered him infamous. On this appeal, the husband asserts that the trial court should not have granted the wife a divorce because she did not properly verify her complaint and asserts that he did not receive property that was rightfully his. We have determined that the judgment should be affirmed and that the case should be remanded for consideration of the husband’s property claims.