Curtis G. Mayes v. Margaret C. Culpepper, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
This is an appeal from the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Through the entire procedure, including an appeal to the Chancery Court for Knox County, the appellant has been denied unemployment compensation benefits because he had been guilty of misconduct arising out of the scope and course of him employment and T.C.A . § 50 -7-303( a ) ( 2 ) bars him from recovery of unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse the judgment of the Chancery Court and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order awarding unemployment benefits as provided by law.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Simmons vs. Simmons
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Olympia Child vs. City Maryville
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Macklin vs. Macklin
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Scott vs. Scott
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Slate vs. Hooper
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Butler vs. Diversified Energy
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Goforth vs. Goforth
|
Court of Appeals | ||
First Citizens Bank vs. Cross
|
Court of Appeals | ||
McProperties vs. City Chattanooga
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Keister vs. Lewis
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Mildred Verkstrom
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Chatt. Regional vs. T.U. Parks Const.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Mildred Verkstrom
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Goley vs. Broyles
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Goley vs. Broyles
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Booze vs. Fairfield Communities
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Booze vs. Fairfield Communities
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Hampton vs. TN Truck Sales
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Sannella vs. Sannella
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
White vs. Armstrong
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bowlin vs. Walkup
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Zebedee Johnson vs. Metro Gov't for Nashville Davidson County
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bell vs. TN Farmers Mutual
|
Warren | Court of Appeals |
COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.