APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I concur wholeheartedly in the majority opinion. I write separately to address the plaintiffs' contention that their sister married Richard Anthony Hendricks "in jest." Even assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the common law requirement of mutual intent to be bound is still a requirement for a valid marriage in Tennessee, an allegation that the parties married in jest is conclusory in nature. Furthermore, it is not supported in the complaint by factual allegations and hence not conceded to be true by the defendant's motion to dismiss. Such a
pleading admits well-pled facts, not conclusions of the pleader. See Swallows v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 543 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1976); Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn. App. 1992). Therefore, the conclusory allegation of a marriage in jest does not render the trial court's action of dismissal inappropriate. The well-pled facts, liberally construed in favor of the plaintiffs, do not make out a cause of action.

North American Rayon Corporation appeals a judgment of the Chancery Court for Carter County which upheld a Board of Review determination that Judy Howell was entitled to unemployment benefits incident to her termination by North American Rayon.

This is a suit by Charles William Coulter and Donna Lee Coulter, brother and sister of Linda Diane Rose Hendricks, who died in an automobile accident on April 24, 1994, seeking to have her marriage on April 1, 1994, to Richard Anthony Hendricks, annulled. The Chancellor granted Mr. Hendricks' motion under Rule 12.02( 6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which contended the complaint failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

This suit was brought against the City of Johnson City(Johnson City) pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), T.C.A. § 29-20-101, et seq. The plaintiff, 1 The wife's claim was for loss of services, companionship, consortium, etc. 2 Alfred Carroll Jones (Jones), was injured while working at the Towne Acres Elementary School, a facility owned and operated by Johnson City. At the time of the injury, the school was closed while an addition was being built to the existing structure. The trial court granted Johnson City's motion for summary judgment, holding that Jones expressly assumed the risk of his injury and "as a matter of law that [Johnson City] owed no legal duty to" Jones based on the undisputed facts. Jones and his wife, the
plaintiff Betty Jones1, appeal, raising the following issues:

First Tennessee has filed a petition for rehearing. The petition basically argues two points: first, that the undisputed material facts show that the defendants did not timely assert their claims of misrepresentation, and hence waived them; and second, that we erred in construing the parties' "First Modification, Renewal, and Extension Agreement and Apointment of Successor Trustee."

Eddie Wililams, Jr. ("petitioner") filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Laderdale County against the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC" or respondent"), seeking court review of actions taken by a prison disciplinary board, prison warden, and the department commissioner. Due process violations resulting therefrom were also alleged. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondent and petitioner has appealed. On appeal, a single issue was presented for review: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant has appealed from a judgment denying its "Application for Execution." We affirm.

The Plaintiffs, Rick Haynes and his wife Karen Haynes, initially sued their adjacent landowners, Defendants John Walker and wife Rosa Mae Walker and Harold Woods. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were entitled to a right-of-way to gain access to tract 8 of the Clint Jones property, a 15.72-acre tract owned by them in Jefferson County. Thereafter, Michael Woods and his wife Paula Young Woods, who acquired a portion of Harold Woods property, were added as party Defendants by an agreed order.

This is a suit to determine the boundary line between the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' property and to confirm that the Plaintiffs have a right-of-way over the property of the Defendants.

This is a post-divorce proceeding involving the custody of the parties' one minor child, Rex M. Massengale, Jr., whose date of birth is September 20, 1985. The parties were divorced by the "Final Judgment and Decree" of the Dade County, Georgia, Superior Court entered on October 19, 1993. That document approved and adopted the parties' agreement that the child's custody should be vested with his mother, Audrey L. Williamson1 (Mother2). The instant controversy was initiated by the child's father, Rex M. Massengale, Sr. (Father), on November 16, 1994, not quite 13 months after the divorce, when he filed a petition to change the child's custody. After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the Father's petition. Father appeals, raising two issues:

This is an appeal by petitioner, Frank Bell, from the chancellor's judgment dismissing Mr. Bell's petition for writ of certiorari. The chancellor dismissed the petition on the ground that it "was not timely filed."