APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

An inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to challenge the Parole Board’s refusal to grant him parole. The Chancery Court dismissed the Petition for failure to comply with the time limitations for filing. We affirm the dismissal on the alternate ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In this action for malicious prosecution, the Trial Judge granted the defendant summary judgment, and plaintiffs have appealed.

In this action the plaintiff sought extraordinary relief to prevent defendant from nterfering with plaintiff's use of a roadway, and for damages for past interference.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion filed by Appellant, Eastera Bell Porter, individually and as surviving spouse and next friend of Jasper D. Porter, deceased, under Rule 60 T.R.C.P., to set aside the summary judgments entered in favor of the appellees, Jesse McGee, M.D. and Methodist Hospitals of Memphis (Methodist). After review of the record, we find an absence of abuse by the trial court in this regard and affirm. We set forth our reasons below.

This case involves the interpretation of an insurance policy. After being struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Dana R. Mabe (“Mabe”), plaintiff Charles G. Miller (“Miller”) filed this personal injury lawsuit against Mabe and defendant The Glens Falls Insurance Company (“Glens Falls”). The trial court granted Glens Falls’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Miller was not covered by the uninsured motorist provision of the Glens Falls policy because he was not “occupying” the insured vehicle at the time he was injured. Miller appealed the trial court’s decision. We affirm.

This appeal involves an inmate’s attempt to obtain judicial review of the parole board’s decision to deny him parole. The Chancery Court for Davidson County dismissed the inmate’s petition for common-law writ of certiorari because it was not filed within the time required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102 (1980). The inmate asserts on this appeal that he filed his petition within the required time after he received notice of the board’s decision to deny him parole. We affirm the judgment because the inmate’s underlying request that the parole board review its decision was not timely filed.