RALPH ALLEY, ET AL., v. QUEBECOR WORLD KINGSPORT, INC., d/n/a QUEBECOR
WORLD HAWKINS, INC.
Russell F. Morris, Jr., and Michael S. Moschel, Nashville, Tennessee,
W. Lewis Jenkins, Jr., Dyersburg, Tennessee, Douglas T. Jenkins,
Rogersville, Tennessee, C. Christopher Raines, Jr., Mount Carmel,
Tennessee, Charles R. Terry, Morristown, Tennessee, and Mark S.
Stapleton, Rogersville, Tennessee, for Appellees.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the Trial Court's refusal to
dismiss the action on the grounds that federal laws preempt a state
action. We reverse and dismiss
CAROLYN MITCHELL BROWN, BY VAN ALLEN JOHNSON, CONSERVATOR, v. JOHN
HILYEE WATSON, JR.
Robert W. Weismueller, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for appellant,
Carolyn Mitchell Brown.
Ralph E.Harwell, and TracyJackson Smith, Knoxville, Tennessee, for
appellee, Van Allen Johnson.
Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for appellee, John Hilyee
The Trial Court annulled Brown's marriage at the insistence of her
conservator. On appeal, we affirm.
SANDRA JANE LaGUARDIA v. MICHAEL J. LaGUARDIA
WITH CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
Judith Fain, Johnson City, Tennessee, for appellant.
Richard W. Pectol and Jeffrey P. Miles, Johnson City, Tennessee, for
In this divorce action, the Trial Court awarded the wife custody of
the children with visitation to the husband, set child support and
alimony in futuro to the wife, and divided the marital property. As
per the marital property division, the wife was awarded 60% interest
in the marital home and the husband 40%, with the right of the mother
to remain in the home until the children reach age 18, and the husband
was required to pay for the upkeep of the home. Further the wife was
ordered to pay 40% of the taxes and insurance and the husband 60%
until the property was sold. On appeal we affirm the Trial Court's
Judgment with modifications. The husband will be allowed to utilize a
care taker, if necessary, during visitation; the marital home will be
sold within two years and the proceeds divided as decreed by the Trial
Court. Following the sale the Trial Court is instructed to determine a
new amount and duration of the alimony award.
MARIO LEGGS v. HOWARD CARLTON, WARDEN and the STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mario A. Leggs, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David E. Coenen,
Assistant Attorney General; William G. Lamberth, II, Assistant
Attorney General; Joe C. Crumley, Jr., District Attorney General, for
the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, Mario Leggs, appeals from the trial court's dismissal
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a
motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of
relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas
corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TIFFANY YVONNE MARSHALL
David Brady, Public Defender; Joe L. Finley, Jr. and John B. Nisbet,
III, Assistant Public Defenders, for the Appellant, Tiffany Yvonne
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Kathy D. Aslinger,
Assistant Attorney General; William E. Gibson, District Attorney
General; and Kevin Poore, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Appellant, Tiffany Yvonne Marshall,1 appeals the revocation of her
probation by the Cumberland County Criminal Court. On April 5, 2004,
Marshall pled guilty to theft over $1,000 and theft under $500 and
received an effective four-year sentence. These sentences were
suspended, and Marshall was placed on probation to be supervised by
community corrections. On May 25, 2004, a probation violation warrant
issued alleging Marshall had committed the offenses of identity theft,
possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, and possession of a
Schedule VI controlled substance. Following a revocation hearing,
Marshall was found to be in violation of her probation, and her
original sentence to the Department of Correction was reinstated. On
appeal, Marshall argues: (1) that the trial court violated Blakely v.
Washington; (2) that the evidence fails to establish that she violated
probation; and (3) that the trial court acted "too harshly" by
revoking her probation. After review, we find no error and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.