Stanley Dennis Waters (“the plaintiff”), a detective with the Polk County Sheriff’s Department, was seriously injured when the Polk County vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by one of the two named defendants and driven by the other named defendant (collectively “the Named Defendants”). The plaintiff’s vehicle was being driven by the Sheriff of Polk County. The plaintiff and his wife sued the Named Defendants.

This is the second appeal in this matter involving applicability of the parties’ agreement, embodied in their 1997 final decree of divorce, regarding issues related to the dissolution of their marriage. In May 2012, the husband sought to terminate his alimony obligation pursuant to said agreement, citing a material change of circumstances affecting his ability to pay. The trial court dismissed the husband’s motion, concluding that the language of the parties’ agreement rendered his alimony obligation non-modifiable. Husband timely appealed.

The dispute in this case arises from a contract for recycling services entered into by the City of Memphis and a recycling vendor. A competing recycling vendor and a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Memphis filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to void the contract, on the ground that the contract was subject to the City of Memphis’s competitive bidding procedure. The trial court determined that, because the City of Memphis did not expend any monies in connection with its recycling contract, the contract was not subject to competitive bidding.

This appeal involves property that the plaintiff alleged was transferred by a deed with a forged signature. The plaintiff filed an action to have the deed, filed over a decade earlier, set aside. The defendants contended that the signature on the deed was an authorized assisted signature, and was recorded and published within a few days after it was made. The defendants further asserted that they had no obligation to announce to anyone they had obtained the property. The trial court found the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof necessary to void the deed. The plaintiff appeals.

In his first trial, appellant, Michael L. Hufford, was convicted of eleven counts of harassment involving two victims. He was convicted in a second trial of driving with a suspended or revoked license, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant represented himself during the first trial. However, on the morning of the second trial, he indicated a desire to have the trial continued so he could retain counsel. The trial court assented but conditioned the continuance upon raising appellant’s bond.

The appellant, Stephano L. Weilacker, was convicted in the Montgomery County Criminal Court of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and received an effective twenty-year sentence to be served consecutively to a previous sentence.

The petitioner, Franklin D. Fish, pro se, appeals the Wilson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief for failure to state a colorable claim. The State concedes that summary dismissal was erroneous. Upon our review, we reverse the decision of the post-conviction court and remand for proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.

Creditor filed a claim against deceased debtor’s estate. Administrator of the estate filed an exception to the claim, alleging that it was not filed within the four-month period following publication of the Notice to Creditors. The Chancery Court, Gibson County, George R. Ellis, J. allowed the claim after finding that the notice provided to Creditor was insufficient to constitute “actual notice” of the probate proceedings, and thus the one-year limitation period for filing claims applied. Administrator appealed. We affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court.

This is a breach of contract action originating from a purchase agreement (“Agreement”) allegedly entered into between the plaintiff construction company and the defendant homeowner. The company filed a complaint alleging that the homeowner failed to make a down payment required by the Agreement when the company had already paid a supplier for materials and a sales commission to its salesman.