Michelle Corley v. Tony Lee Corley
A mother brought a post-divorce contempt petition alleging multiple instances where father had violated the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. At the hearing on the contempt petition, the trial court found that mother was in possession of notes from her attorney during her redirect examination. Father moved for a mistrial, and the court granted the motion. Father subsequently objected to a new hearing on the ground that retrial would violate the double jeopardy protections of the state and federal constitutions. We have determined that retrial of the father, who requested the mistrial, would not violate double jeopardy protections. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Abhinav Upadhyaya v. Disha Awasthi
On the first day of a scheduled divorce trial, the parties announced an agreement in open court as to the remaining property issues in dispute. The parties thereafter submitted competing orders to the trial court; the trial court adopted the wife’s proposed language in the final decree. The husband appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and award the wife her reasonable appellate attorney’s fees and expenses. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
BRANDON HALL v. KYLE MITCHELL
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Because of the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, we deem the appellant’s issues waived. We grant the appellee’s request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal but decline to vacate the trial court’s order on a post-hearing motion to compel. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE BRYISON B.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. We affirm the trial court’s findings as |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE BRANTLEY S. ET AL
This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights of Dustin S. ("Father"), and Katlyn H. ("Mother"). The trial court found that two grounds had been proven: (1) both parents had committed severe child abuse under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1 113(g)(4) against their children, and (2) each had received a felony sentence of two years for severe child abuse under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(5). The trial court also found that termination of their rights was in the best interest of the children. Both parents appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
Jessica Trimble v. Gregory John Vela
Mother filed a petition to modify the parties’ parenting plan seeking additional parenting time with the child. Father filed a counter-petition alleging that Mother had repeatedly interfered with Father’s parenting time and communication with the child, and he requested that he be designated primary residential parent. The trial court modified the parenting plan by designating Father as the primary residential parent, reducing Mother’s parenting time from 265 days to 120 days, and increasing Father’s parenting time from 100 days to 245 days. Mother appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of the best interest factors. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Kelly v. Beth Bhatnagar et al.
A property owner relocated several monuments from a historic family burial ground located on his property and later filed a petition seeking to terminate the land’s use as a burial ground. The defendants, who are other descendants of those identified on the monuments, denied that the burial ground should be closed and filed a counterclaim seeking injunctive relief. After a bench trial, the court found that the statutory requirements for closure were not met and dismissed the petition. The trial court entered an injunction ordering the return of the monuments and the honoring of a defendant’s wish to be buried there. We reverse the portion of the order regarding the defendant’s burial rights. Finding no other reversible error, we affirm in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Callaway LaForce v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
This is an action for access to records from a homicide investigation assigned to the “cold case” section of the Metropolitan Police Department of Nashville and Davidson County (“MNPD”). The petitioner sought, among other things, all reports in the case file, all E-911 recordings in the file, and the personnel records of any employee who authored a report or memo in the file. MNPD denied the request in full because the investigation was still open. Petitioner then commenced this action against MNPD and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) to compel them to comply with the records request. Petitioner argued that the records she requested were not related to a “pending or contemplated” criminal action because MNPD had no active leads and had transferred the investigation to the Cold Case Section. After conducting an evidentiary hearing based on declarations, the trial court ordered Metro to disclose the E-911 records, but it held that MNPD had no duty to produce the personnel records because the request was not sufficiently detailed. Relying on the decision in Tennessean v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 485 S.W.3d 857 (Tenn. 2016), the trial court concluded that the remaining records were exempt from disclosure under the state law exception to the Tennessee Public Records Act and under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. The court also denied the petitioner’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Scott Patrick Werner, et al. v. De'Anthony Melton
This appeal arises from claims of negligence and negligence per se stemming from a dog bite. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff after the defendant failed to respond to the lawsuit. Nine months after the entry of the final order, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02. The defendant claimed that he had not been served, had not been aware of the lawsuit, and the facts upon which summary judgment had been granted were false. The trial court denied the motion to set aside. The defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ahmad Aysheh v. City of Memphis
This appeal comes before us from the Shelby County Chancery Court’s order affirming |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
ROBERT BROCK ET AL. v. GRACE WESSEL
A general sessions court, on its own motion, set aside a default judgment in favor of the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
MAWULE TEPE v. CONNOR MCCARTHY BLAIR ET AL.
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP OF MEIR ANAVI
The appellant seeks to appeal an order entered on March 12, 2026. The notice of appeal |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Thomas Fox v. Nancy Cheairs ET AL.
The instant appeal requires us to determine whether the probate court properly granted summary judgment in this caseinvolving the ownership of interpleaded funds. Appellee Nancy Cheairs filed a federal district court copyright infringement lawsuit against Helen Thomas and her son, Appellee Mark Thomas. Helen Thomas died during the lawsuit’s pendency. Cheairs was granted judgment against Mark Thomas, who subsequently filed bankruptcy. Appellee Lisa Fox, as Helen Thomas’s Personal Representative, filed the instant interpleader action in the trial court, seeking guidance as to who would receive Mark Thomas’ expected inheritance from Helen Thomas. Appellant/law firm, who represented Mark Thomas in the federal lawsuit, filed a notice of attorney’s lien as to the interpleaded funds. The bankruptcy court discharged all of Mark Thomas’ debts except for Cheairs’ judgment and extinguished the law firm’s purported lien. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the federal court orders and granted Cheairs’ motion for summary judgment, awarding her the interpleaded funds. Appellant/law firm appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Scherri Nicole Henderson v. Willie Henderson, Jr.
Because the trial court and parties failed to comply with the prior orders of this Court concerning the sealing of the record, the appeal is not ready for appellate review. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
KIMBERLY J. SMITH v. GREGORY A. SMITH
This appeal concerns post‑divorce proceedings. For many years, wife has sought to enforce husband’s alimony obligation, pursuing civil and criminal contempt based on allegations of nonpayment and nondisclosure of assets. The trial court entered a series of orders denying most of wife’s requested relief, concluding among other things that it could not make husband get and keep a job and that wife had not proven fraud sufficient to reopen the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. Wife appeals. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of Revenue, et al.
Appellant stopped paying the premium on an automobile insurance policy covering his minivan. After receiving notices prescribed by statute, the Department of Revenue revoked the vehicle’s registration. Appellant requested a contested case hearing before that department. While the contested case remained pending, Appellant filed suit in chancery court against the Commissioner of Revenue and the Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security in their official capacities, alleging that the two departments had gone beyond their statutory authority in administering the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Law and its electronic insurance verification program. Appellant sought declaratory and injunctive relief, the reorganization of both departments under a special master, and more than $369,000 in legal fees. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the suit because Appellant had not satisfied the requirement of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Devon N. Bagwell v. Noel R. Bagwell, III
This appeal arises from post-divorce proceedings. The trial court modified the parties’ permanent parenting plan for their minor child upon determining that a material change in circumstance had occurred and modification was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Samuel H. et al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The trial court found two grounds for termination: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also concluded that terminating Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. However, the trial court’s best interest analysis extensively addressed not only the circumstances of the children in the present case but also the circumstances of other children in an entirely different parental termination proceeding. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination. We vacate, however, the trial court’s best interest determination, and we remand for the trial court to make a best interest determination for the children in the present case and findings appropriate to the present case. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ADALYNN M., ET AL
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Eddie Lamaine Brown v. Chrystal Diane Armstrong Brown
In this appeal involving competing petitions to modify a Virginia residential co-parenting order, the trial court denied both petitions after determining that no material change of circumstance existed warranting modification. Because the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard to its analysis regarding material change of circumstance, we vacate and remand with instructions to apply the proper standard set forth in Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013). We decline to award Mother her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Randall Ray Smith v. Joe M. Lambert, Jr.
This case involves the plaintiff landowner’s pro se appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his verified complaint against the defendant substitute trustee. The trustee had initiated a foreclosure proceeding on certain unimproved real property owned by the landowner after the landowner defaulted on his loan indebtedness. The landowner subsequently filed suit against the trustee, alleging four causes of action: wrongful foreclosure, fraud and deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the landowner’s civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the landowner timely appealed the trial court’s dismissal order to this Court. Because the plaintiff’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal. |
Moore | Court of Appeals | |
Michelle Jouvence v. Patrick J. Reeners
This appeal arises from the Sumner County Circuit Court’s dismissal of an appeal from the Sumner County General Sessions Court’s denial of a motion to recuse. The Circuit Court reasoned that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the appellant failed to perfect an interlocutory appeal under Rule 10B of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules and failed to perfect an appeal as of right under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-5-108. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Scotty Campbell v. Krista Lee Carsner, Director of the Office of Legislative Administration
A former state representative filed a petition under the Tennessee Public Records Act to compel the disclosure of records related to an internal legislative investigation into his conduct. The trial court dismissed the petition on multiple grounds including that the separation of powers bars the judiciary from reviewing the legislature’s internal investigation rules for disciplinary matters. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan Crawley v. Zanies Real Estate, LLC et al.
After getting sick following a visit to a comedy club, a customer sued the venue for negligence and breach of contract. The court found after a bench trial that the cause of the customer’s sickness had not been proved, so it dismissed the customer’s claims with prejudice. The court also denied the customer’s post-judgment request to amend the judgment based on evidence that one of the witnesses at trial may have given false testimony. We affirm. |
Davidson | 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.