Court of Appeals Opinions
|
Lorri Bailey (Capps) vs. David Capps M1999-02300-COA-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd This child custody case has already been the subject of one appeal before this Court. The father was awarded sole custody of the parties' only child, with the mother receiving liberal visitation rights. The mother petitioned for a change of custody. The trial court found that there was no material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an award of sole custody to the mother. However, the original custody order was modified to provide that the parties had joint custody, with the father being the "primary residential custodian." The trial court also ordered that the mother was no longer required to pay child support and that the mother owed no arrearage in child support. The father appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part, affirming the order of joint custody and the order that the mother is not required to pay child support, but we reverse on the issue of the mother's child support arrearage. |
Wilson County | Court of Appeals | 04/27/90 | |
|
In Re: Estate of Warren Glenn Brown, Candice Mathis, v. Joe Brown 01A01-9809-PB-00471 Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew Jackson In this case, the decedent’s grand niece, Candice Mathis, the petitioner, appeals the trial court’s finding that she failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence the lost or destroyed will of her grand uncle, Warren Brown. The trial court ordered that the administration of the estate proceed as an intestate estate. For the following reasons, we reverse. |
Dickson County | Court of Appeals | 10/07/88 | |
|
Pruett Enterprises, Inc., v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance, Co. 03A01-9609-CH-00309 Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples This non-jury case involves the interpretation of a commercial insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford) to Pruett Enterprises, Inc. (Pruett). Pruett, the owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in Hamilton County, sued Hartford under the policy for “spoilage losses to various perishable items [caused] when electrical power to [two of Pruett’s] grocery stores was interrupted as a result of a heavy snow blizzard [on or about March 13, 1993].” Each of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Based upon the parties’ stipulation of facts, the trial court granted Hartford partial summary judgment, finding that the loss at 6925 Middle Valley Road, Hixson (“Middle Valley Store”) was not covered by the policy. As to the loss at Pruett’s store at 3936 Ringgold Road, East Ridge (“Ringgold Road Store”), the trial court found a genuine issue of fact and denied Hartford’s motion. |
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 08/17/04 |