Legal Opinion

Kuykendall v. Wheeler

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1994PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BIRCH, Justice.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order that required Billy Ray Kuyk-endall, the appellant, to satisfy a judgment for child support arrearage by installment payments. This ruling was made despite the fact that Kuykendall’s child support obligation had been terminated by the trial court on January 8, 1990, approximately eighteen months before entry of the installment order.

We accepted the Rule 11, Tenn.R.App.P. application filed by the appellant in order to determine whether the trial court may enforce its judgment for arrearage by ordering the judgment…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Saylors v. RiggsbeeTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Penland v. PenlandTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Clinchfield Stone Co. v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1952
  4. Sutton v. SuttonTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Sowell v. SowellTennessee Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Doe v. SundquistTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, a/k/a Otis SmithTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Ingram v. EarthmanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
  4. In re D.A.H.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Board of Professional Responsibility v. LoveTennessee Supreme Court · 2008

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API