DONQUISE ALEXANDER v. NECX DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ET AL.,
This appeal involves prison disciplinary proceedings. The prison disciplinary board found the appellant guilty of three disciplinary offenses: assault; participation in security threat group activity; and possession of contraband. The appellant’s appeals to the warden and commissioner were denied. He then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court. Upon review of the record, the chancery court dismissed the petition. The court found that the punishments imposed by the disciplinary board did not impose a significant enough hardship to trigger due process protection, but even if they had, the appellant received the minimum due process that would have been required. The chancery court also found that the board followed its procedures in conducting its proceedings, and the appellant failed to allege how any continuances resulted in substantial prejudice or denied him fair hearings. The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the chancery court. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
LEIGH STEVENS WHITE v. DARIN PAUL WHITE
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua M. Gracin v. Ann Marie Harvey
In this post-divorce action, the father challenges two orders in which the trial court found him to be in civil contempt. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court and remand for a determination of the mother’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE JAYDEN B.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The trial court |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
John Albert Veith IV v. Andrew Devictor Veith
After a divorce, a mother sought to enforce a marital dissolution agreement and modify an existing permanent parenting plan. The trial court held the father in civil contempt for willful failure to pay his former spouse her agreed share of his work bonus as specified in the marital dissolution agreement. It awarded the mother attorney’s fees related to this issue as compensatory damages. But it denied her request for prejudgment interest. The court dismissed the mother’s remaining enforcement claims and denied the modification request. Upon review, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and the denial of prejudgment interest and remand for reconsideration of those issues. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
MELANIE PLEASANT v. CITY OF ELIZABETHTON
This appeal concerns a pedestrian’s negligence lawsuit against a municipality after she |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Dinovo, Jr. et al. v. Kenneth Binkley et al.
A worker at an oil company was injured and entered into a workers’ compensation settlement agreement in which he represented that he was an employee of the oil company. He subsequently sued the oil company, asserting that he had always been an independent contractor and not an employee and that he had only stated otherwise because of intentional misrepresentation on the part of the oil company. The trial court granted summary judgment to the oil company. Because the worker is bound by his previous representation that he was an employee and because he did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding intentional misrepresentation, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Parker v. Priscilla Love et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of her motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Leo George Masulla
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a verified creditor claim filed by Ned Hanson (“Mr. Hanson”) against the Estate of Leo George Masulla (“the Estate” or “Mr. Masulla”) pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 30-2-307. The claim, in the total amount of $2,185,431, is for expenditures by Mr. Hanson for the “personal care” of Mr. Masulla and “farm management and improvement services” for the period from 2009 to 2022, when Mr. Masulla died. The personal representative of the estate of Mr. Masulla as well as his heirs at law timely filed exceptions to the claim denying any liability. Thereafter, the estate and heirs each filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Mr. Hanson filed a response in opposition to the motions to dismiss as well as a motion to amend the claim. The probate court denied the motion to amend as untimely. The court also dismissed the claim on multiple grounds finding “it is in violation of the statute of frauds, statute of limitations and the claim is unsubstantiated as the credit card statements are not sufficient to support the claim,” and that the claim was a collateral attack on a final judgment in a chancery court action to quiet title to Mr. Masulla’s real property in his heirs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the probate court in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE MIAH M.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her daughter. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Briella F.
Brandie A. (“Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to Briella F. (“Briella”). She contends she was denied due process because the trial court granted her attorney leave to withdraw during the eleventh day of a fifteen-day trial. She also challenges the grounds upon which termination was based and the finding that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Connie Reguli v. Mayor Rogers Anderson of Williamson County, Tennessee
This appeal arises from the Williamson County Chancery Court’s order imposing sanctions on the Petitioner-Appellant. At issue are the following: (1) whether a non-sanctioned party has standing “to argue on behalf of” sanctions imposed on the court’s own motion; (2) whether a sanction is improper when it imposes a pre-filing restriction that requires the sanctioned party to engage an attorney as associate counsel to ensure compliance with Rule 11 in all civil actions brought by that party in the Twenty-First Judicial District; and (3) whether a party on remand is entitled to a refund of discretionary costs initially paid to the opposing party. Following our review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley Dyer v. Hudson Haven
Following an automobile accident, the plaintiff sued the other driver and the plaintiff’s own uninsured motorist carrier. The plaintiff, however, failed to properly serve the other driver. After learning of this failure to serve the other driver, the uninsured motorist carrier sought dismissal. In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff requested an enlargement of time in which to serve the other driver under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. The trial court, finding the failure to serve constituted excusable neglect, granted the enlargement of time and consequently denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court and this court, however, granted the uninsured motorist carrier’s application for permission to appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. We conclude the trial court misapplied the four-factor excusable neglect test and, accordingly, erred in granting the enlargement of time and denying the motion to dismiss. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
ROBERT C. BULLARD V. DIANE K. WOLFORD, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES L. (BUCKY) WOLFORD, ET AL.
This appeal involves a breach of contract action for specific performance for the purchase |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
KENNETH LUCAS v. HEATHER FIFIELD
This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in modifying the parties’ |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Kelley v. Karen Elizabeth Bowden and Karen Elizabeth Bowden v. Jean Kelley
This appeal arises from the filing of competing Petitions for Orders of Protection by two neighbors. The trial court granted the appellee’s petition after finding that the appellant’s actions met the criteria for stalking set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-315. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s petition. The appellant appeals, and upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the consolidated judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jessie L.
The trial court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of the grounds of severe abuse and persistent conditions and found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The mother appeals. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
TRAVIS LEE DAVIS v. JENNIFER HOPE DAVIS
This appeal arises from the court’s modification of a permanent parenting plan in which the trial court designated the father as the primary residential parent. We now dismiss the appeal due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Johnson ET AL. v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation D/B/A Regional One Health ET AL.
Plaintiff’s healthcare liability action against a hospital and several doctors was dismissed for failure to comply with the Tennessee Healthcare Liability Act and the expiration of the statute of limitations. Because of profound deficiencies in the plaintiff’s appellate brief, we dismiss this appeal |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Grace Melidosian Cowan v. Todd Thompson et al.
Appellant filed this petition for recusal appeal after the trial court denied her motion to recuse. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE SEVIER COUNTY GRAND JURY
This appeal stems from a trial court’s order in a declaratory judgment action. However, because the appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
James Paul Burkhart v. Kathryn Jean Burkhart
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for recusal. Discerning no error upon our review of the petition for recusal appeal, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Cedric D. Coleman v. Candace Marie Coleman
Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to award the parties essentially equal parenting time despite the parties’ inability to communicate effectively, Father’s almost-three-year absence from the ten-year-old child’s life, and the court-appointed expert’s recommendation that Father’s parenting time be increased incrementally. We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for reconsideration of the parenting time issue. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Shelby B.
This appeal arises from dependency and neglect proceedings concerning the minor child, Shelby B., (“Shelby”), the child of Tyffany B. (“Mother”), and Lakota B. (“Father”). The petitioner, Sophia H. (“Grandmother”), with whom Shelby had been residing for several years, filed the petition alleging that Shelby was dependent and neglected under Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-102(b)(13)(J), which defines a dependent and neglected child as one “[w]ho has willfully been left in the sole financial care and sole physical care of a related caregiver for not less than eighteen (18) consecutive months by the child’s parent . . . and the child will suffer substantial harm if removed from the continuous care of such relative[.]” After the juvenile court found Shelby was dependent and neglected, Mother appealed to the circuit court. Following a two-day de novo hearing, the circuit court also ruled Shelby dependent and neglected and vested custody with Grandmother. Mother appealed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Engle v. Aaron Payne, DDS
The plaintiff brought suit against his dentist, asserting that the dentist was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat a cavity which the plaintiff contends was apparent from an x-ray and from his complaints of discomfort, ultimately resulting in loss of the plaintiff’s tooth. The action was dismissed because the plaintiff never filed a certificate of good faith. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that his claim falls within the common knowledge exception to the certificate of good faith requirement. We conclude that the allegations do not fall within the common knowledge exception, and we affirm the dismissal. |
Rutherford | 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.