Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC
A general contractor sued a subcontractor, alleging breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the general contractor and awarded damages and attorney’s fees. The subcontractor appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand for a determination of the general contractor’s appellate attorney’s fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
KATHRYN MARCH V. DON DANIEL MARCH
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right. The petitioner seeks review of the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE KNOXLEE B.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory "Shane" Owens et al. v. Matt Machado et al.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s judgment finding the defendant did not fraudulently misrepresent that he was a licensed contractor. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
WESLEY SKATZES v. PAMELA SKATZES
This is an appeal from a divorce involving one minor child. Appellant claims that the trial |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Preston H.
This appeal involves a petition for terminationof parental rights and stepparent adoption. The chancery court found that the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and abandonment by failure to support were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ADELINE S.
This action involves the adoption of a minor child whose mother was deceased. The child’s father had gained custody of the child after the child’s mother’s death, but the father was later arrested and incarcerated. The child was then placed in the custody of the paternal grandparents. With the father’s consent, the grandparents filed a petition for termination of the father’s parental rights and for adoption. The trial court granted the petition on the same day it was filed. The maternal grandmother, who had been allowed to intervene in custody proceedings involving the minor child and the paternal grandparents pending in a different court, filed a motion seeking to set aside the adoption decree. The trial court denied the motion, and the maternal grandmother has appealed. Determining that the maternal grandmother lacks standing to seek relief in the trial court or on appeal, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
William Green, et al. v. Blue Oak Oyster Bar & Grill, LLC, et al.
Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Appellants’ premises liability |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
DERRY M. THOMPSON ET AL. v. TIMOTHY A. GRAHAM ET AL.
After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement in a case. One of the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ella Tuplin v. Servando Jordan Delgadillo
A stalking victim was granted an order of protection prohibiting the Appellant from having contact with her. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order of protection due to a federal lawsuit the Appellant initiated against a third party. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction and affirm its judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ESTATE OF JOHN “JOCK” T. DAVIDSON, III
In this probate case, several potential creditors filed claims against the decedent’s estate in |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
U-HAUL CO. OF TENNESSEE v. WARREN ALMQUIST
The appellee-plaintiff sued the appellant-defendant alleging breach of contract and |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
KELLY BROOKE MARTIN v. NGHIA TRONG VAN
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Stephen Eimers v. Lindsay Corporation et al.
The plaintiff filed a qui tam action on behalf of the State of Tennessee against several defendants who designed and manufactured guardrails that were installed on Tennessee roads. The defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the expiration of the Tennessee False Claims Act’s three-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff responded, inter alia, that the statute of limitations had been tolled while an earlier federal action involving this claim had been pending. The defendants disagreed, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) because he had voluntarily dismissed all of his claims in the federal action. But the plaintiff asserted that he was not entitled to voluntarily dismiss his claims in the federal action due to specific requirements of the federal False Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but granted an interlocutory appeal to this Court. We hold that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all of his claims in the federal action and that he therefore was not entitled to tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). So we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deirdre Michelle Wilson v. Regions Bank
Plaintiff/Appellant filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B seeking review of the trial court’s order denying her motion to recuse. Finding no evidence of bias requiring recusal, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
JAMES STAMPER v. KYLE A. MILLER ET AL.
This is a negligence action arising from an accident wherein the plaintiff pedestrian was |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Andre Lemaurio Johnson-el v. Caren Gabriel d/b/a Former CEO of Ascend Federal Credit Union
The plaintiff appeals a final order dismissing his complaint. Because the plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
BFI Waste Services, LLC, et al. v. Recovery Associates Group, LLC, et al.
In this interlocutory appeal, two of the defendants appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the pre-suit notice and good faith certificate requirements of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. We affirm the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy E. Henderlight, Jr. v. David Henderlight et al.
This litigation arises from a dispute between cousins who started a business together. During discovery, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to respond in good faith to the defendants’ requests for admission and deemed all requests admitted. Shortly thereafter, the court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s attorney leave to withdraw. The defendants/counter-plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted by and against them, relying on the admissions as well as declarations they submitted. The plaintiff failed to file any response to the motions for summary judgment. However, he did appear pro se at the summary judgment hearing and claimed that he was unaware of the summary judgment motions until two days earlier because he did not know that his email address had been provided to opposing counsel and the court, and he had not checked that email since his counsel withdrew. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to testify as to these facts. However, the court ultimately found that the plaintiff was properly served with the motions and had notice of the hearing date. Considering the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motions for summary judgment, in addition to the plaintiff’s admissions and his failure to respond to the statements of material facts, the court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Thus, the trial court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiff and also granted the defendant/counter plaintiffs damages on their counterclaims. The plaintiff retained counsel and timely filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that his failure to respond to the summary judgment motions was due to excusable neglect. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s proffered excuse was a tactic for delay, he was not credible, and he acted intentionally. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Rosanne S. Feltus v. Douglas B. Wright
During a divorce proceeding, a husband and wife signed a marital dissolution agreement that provided two trusts they had previously formed would be terminated, and the assets distributed to the wife. However, neither the trustee nor the two trust beneficiaries were made parties to the divorce proceeding, and the trusts remained in existence for several years. The wife filed a lawsuit in circuit court and named the trustee and other beneficiaries as defendants. Default judgments were entered against each defendant. The trustee filed a motion to set aside the judgment that was granted. The wife non-suited the circuit court action as to the trustee and filed a lawsuit against him in chancery court. The trustee filed an answer and countercomplaint in which he sought an award of trustee’s fees and attorneys’ fees. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The chancery court entered an order granting the trustee’s motion for summary judgment and later awarded him trustee’s fees and attorneys’ fees. The wife appeals. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
C. Randolph Brown, by and through his attorney-in-fact Stuart Brown, and Stuart Brown, individually v. Fifth Third Bank
This appeal arises from a suit filed by a borrower and his son against a mortgage lender in an attempt to avoid a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs alleged that the lender breached a settlement agreement the parties entered into by unreasonably imposing an escrow account and by failing to provide a required notification to credit reporting agencies. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the lender on both claims and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
SUSAN ZEILER v. THE CORPORATE IMAGE, INC.
The plaintiff-appellant sued the defendant-appellee alleging that the defendant engaged in |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
NYRSTAR TENNESSEE MINES-STRAWBERRY PLAINS, LLC v. MOSSY CREEK MINING, LLC
The dispute in this case is over the interpretation and meaning of the indemnity provision |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE MYLEE P. ET AL.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. The chancery court found clear and |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
SAMUEL JESSE WARNER, ET AL. v. COLONEL LIZ HUNT D/B/A AUCTIONEER
This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant |
Hamilton | 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.