Skip to main content

Fox v. Fox

Citations

  • 657 S.W.2d 747
  • 1983 Tenn. LEXIS 644

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that there must be certification by the trial judge that there is no just reason for delay and that the court has directed the entry of a final judgment
  • holding that an interlocutory order “can be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all parties” (citing Stidham v. Fickle Heirs, 643 S.W.2d 324, 325 (Tenn. 1982)
  • noting that an interlocutory order “can be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all parties”
  • “Rule 54.02 . . . certification by the trial judge creates a final judgment appealable as of right under Rule 3 T.R.A.P.”
  • a pendente lite order is not final absent determination of finality by trial court consistent with Tenn.R.Civ.P.54.02
  • “[T]he order is interlocutory and can be revised at any time before the entry of judgment -6- adjudicating all the claims and rights and liabilities of all parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Drowota, Fones, Cooper, Brock, Harbison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

106 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.