Cook v. McCullough

26 Citing cases

  1. Vazeen v. Martin Sir

    No. M2022-00273-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 21, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Id. (citing Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)). And when a case has been remanded by a high court, the "law of the case" doctrine is applicable:

  2. In re Malone

    No. W2024-00134-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn.App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).

  3. Allen v. Am. Yeast Inc.

    No. W2021-00956-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2023)

    The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn.App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63(1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987).

  4. In re Estate of McCants

    No. E2019-01159-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court's opinion, McDade v. McDade, 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to expand the proceedings beyond the remand order.

  5. Stinson v. Mensel

    No. M2017-02497-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 17, 2019)

    The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court's opinion, McDade v. McDade, 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to

  6. Raleigh Commons, Inc. v. SWH, LLC

    580 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    judgments, and mandates" and may limit the scope of a remand. State v. Williams , 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ; State v. Irick , 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995) ; Cook v. McCullough , 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn. App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."

  7. Duke v. Duke

    563 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 17 times
    Stating "a trial court speaks through its written orders—not through oral statements contained in the transcripts—and that the appellate court reviews the trial court's written orders"

    The appellate court’s opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin , 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court’s opinion. Cook v. McCullough , 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court’s opinion, McDade v. McDade , 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to expand the proceedings beyond the remand order.

  8. Boyd v. Cruze

    No. E2003-02697-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2005)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that no conditional judgment had been entered where an order was prepared by counsel, but "for whatever reason, the conditional judgment was never signed and entered by the trial court"

    Even though jurisdiction in a given case has vested in the Court of Appeals, we can, while generally retaining jurisdiction over the case, remand the case to the trial court for a specific and limited purpose. See generallyCook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987). Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-3-128 (2000) provides as follows:

  9. Jones v. Dorrough

    No. E2003-02749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Williams, 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001); State v. Irick, 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn.App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."

  10. Silvey v. Silvey

    No. E2003-00586-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2004)   Cited 10 times
    In Silvey, this court was confronted with a trial court's factual finding that a wife had substantially contributed to the preservation and appreciation of a couple's marital home.

    State v. Williams, 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001); State v. Irick, 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn.App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."