This is a divorce action in which the trial court granted the husband a divorce and entered a parenting plan, designating the husband as the primary residential parent but awarding the wife substantially equal co-parenting time with the minor child. The husband appeals, raising numerous issues relating to the parenting plan. We affirm.

In this post-divorce dispute, Father asserts the trial court erred in failing to find a material change in circumstances warranting a change in the residential schedule. We have reviewed the evidence and find that the significant change in Father’s work schedule, the parties’ admitted failure to adhere strictly to the parenting plan, and Father’s remarriage, when taken together, constitute a material change affecting the child’s best interest.

This is an appeal of the general sessions court’s grant of a one-year extension of an order of protection. The respondent, a pro se litigant, appealed the extension to the circuit court. The circuit court initially dismissed the appeal as untimely. Upon further review, the circuit court transferred the appeal to this court for lack of jurisdiction. We hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. However, a final order for purposes of appeal was never entered. We remand this case for entry of a final order.

A mother and father were divorced in 1993, and the mother was granted custody of the two children born of the marriage; the father was ordered to pay child support for their two children in the amount of $50 per week. In 1997 the children came into the custody of their maternal grandfather, and in 2007, the Tennessee Department of Human Services Child Support Division filed a petition to set child support against the father.

Subdivision developer brought a breach of contract action against the contractor who had been engaged nine years previously to pave the roads in the subdivision after the contractor refused to complete the second phase of paving for the roads at the price specified in the contract. The contractor moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the provision in the contract relating to the second phase of paving was a separate offer which had not been accepted by the developer and that the action was barred by laches and the statute of limitations. Developer also moved for summary judgment.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, it is undisputed that Employee sustained an injury arising out of and in the scope of his employment; the issue on appeal, however, is whether Employee carried his burden of proving that his work-related injury caused a permanent disability.

Employee aggravated a pre-existing asymptomatic condition in her shoulder while working for Employer and failed to make a meaningful return to work. The trial court found employee to be 100 percent disabled and awarded permanent total disability benefits. Employer appealed,1 arguing that the trial court erred in determining that employee sustained a compensable injury in the absence of anatomical change and in awarding employee permanent total disability benefits. After our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Employee aggravated a pre-existing asymptomatic condition in her shoulder while working for Employer and failed to make a meaningful return to work. The trial court found employee to be 100 percent disabled and awarded permanent total disability benefits. Employer appealed,1 arguing that the trial court erred in determining that employee sustained a compensable injury in the absence of anatomical change and in awarding employee permanent total disability benefits. After our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The Defendant, Kevin Lynn Montgomery, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery and received an effective four-year sentence. More than five years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence or permit him to withdraw his guilty pleas because lifetime community supervision was not authorized by statute. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a bench trial, the Knox County Criminal Court convicted the appellant, Randy Lane, of five counts of aggravated burglary and six counts of felony theft of property and sentenced him to a total effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court?s denial of his motion to suppress his statement, arguing that he made the statement as part of a plea agreement that turned out to be unenforceable.