Opinions

Brandon E. Banks v. State of Tennessee
M2025-01134-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Tom Greenholtz
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cynthia Chappell

In 2017, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Brandon E. Banks, of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery. Before trial, the trial court denied the Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone. The State then made two plea offers, which the Petitioner rejected before proceeding to trial. On direct appeal, this court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress but concluded that the error was harmless. The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner raises three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that trial counsel failed to communicate adequately with him during the plea negotiations that followed the suppression ruling. He also argues that trial counsel should have sought interlocutory review of that ruling or advised him to preserve the issue as a certified question of law. Finally, he argues that trial counsel should have called an expert witness to support his duress defense at trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

DEVELOPED BY DESIGN, LLC v. JAMES M. TRAVIS ET AL.
E2025-01761-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Melissa T. Willis, Chancellor

This is an action involving a dispute over ownership of a tract of unimproved real property.
The plaintiff company had purchased a tract of land for development, but when the
company commenced work on the tract, the adjacent landowners complained that the
company had encroached on the landowners’ real property. The company filed suit against
the landowners, alleging that the company’s understanding of the boundary line location
was consistent with a recorded survey from 1967 and that the deeds to both parties’
properties referenced the same survey. In their answer, the defendant landowners claimed
that they owned the disputed property through the doctrine of adverse possession.
Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the landowners had failed to establish
the elements necessary for a claim of adverse possession. Discerning no reversible error,
we affirm.

Kylee Davis v. Uptown Male Spa & Skincare Center, LLC et al.
M2024-01520-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Neal McBrayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonita Jo Atwood

An employee sued her former employer and former co-worker, claiming that her former employer violated the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The employee alleged that she was constructively discharged for failing to remain silent about the illegal activities of her former co-worker. The employee also claimed her former employer and former co-worker were liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim and awarded costs. We affirm the dismissal but vacate the award of costs.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda Suzanne Ross
M2025-00978-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Parkes

Defendant, Amanda Suzanne Ross, appeals her conviction for driving under the influence, first offense. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment because it was untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40‑2‑102(a) and 40-2-104. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC
M2025-01651-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

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.

State of Tennessee v. Amanda R. Mobley Henry
M2025-02071-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jill Bartee Ayers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Suzanne Lockert-Mash

Defendant, Amanda R. Mobley Henry, appeals the trial court’s order revoking her six year probationary sentence for financial exploitation of an elderly person and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that she absconded from supervision and by fully revoking her probation. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Gregory "Shane" Owens et al. v. Matt Machado et al.
M2025-01147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Valerie L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Wayne Collins

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

KATHRYN MARCH V. DON DANIEL MARCH
E2026-01515-COA-T10B-CV
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Christopher D. Heagerty, Jr., Chancellor

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.

IN RE KNOXLEE B.
E2025-01611-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: John W. McClarty, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Amanda Worley, Judge

This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child.
Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established
several grounds of termination and that termination was in the best interest of the child.
We now affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Michael B. Hurst
E2025-02047-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hector Sanchez

The Defendant, Michael B. Hurst, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury
of unlawful possession of a weapon by a violent felon, a Class B felony, and violation of
the seat belt law, a Class C misdemeanor, and received an effective thirty-year sentence.
See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (Supp. 2021) (subsequently amended) (unlawful
possession of a weapon), 55-9-603 (2024) (seat belt law). He appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop and contends the
evidence is insufficient to support the firearm conviction. We affirm the judgments of the
trial court.

WESLEY SKATZES v. PAMELA SKATZES
E2025-01462-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Valerie L. Smith, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Richard B. Armstrong, Jr., Chancellor

This is an appeal from a divorce involving one minor child. Appellant claims that the trial
court erred in multiple ways when valuing and distributing the marital estate. He also
challenges his limited and restricted parenting time in the permanent parenting plan entered
by the court. Because the record is insufficient to support the valuation of certain items
within the marital estate, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s judgment. Further, the
trial court’s order lacks sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the
permanent parenting plan. Accordingly, we vacate the permanent parenting plan and
remand for further proceedings. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Ray Roark
E2025-01419-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Alex E. Pearson

The Defendant, Kevin Ray Roark, was convicted by a Greene County jury of driving under
the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section
55‑10‑401 and received a suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty‑nine days with
ninety days to serve. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to present a defense and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 by
excluding his proffered expert witness; (2) that the trial court erred under Tennessee Rule
of Evidence 702 and McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263-65
(Tenn. 1997) by admitting the State’s drug‑impairment expert without conducting the
required reliability analysis; (3) that the trial court improperly denied his Rule 29 motion
for judgment of acquittal; and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Based upon our review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re Preston H.
W2026-00214-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Carma Dennis McGee
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Michael Mansfield

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.

IN RE ADELINE S.
E2025-02044-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II
Trial Court Judge: Christopher D. Heagerty, Chancellor

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.

Devan Denton v. State of Tennessee
W2026-00485-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carlyn L. Addison

The Petitioner, Devan Denton, filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that due process required the tolling of the statute of limitations based on alleged attorney abandonment, and that the statute of limitations should be tolled because he pursued federal habeas corpus relief before filing his post-conviction petition. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely and that the Petitioner failed to present a basis for due process tolling. The Petitioner appeals, claiming the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

William Green, et al. v. Blue Oak Oyster Bar & Grill, LLC, et al.
W2025-01744-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeff Parham

Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Appellants’ premises liability
complaint failed to state a claim. Appellants argued that their complaint was sufficient but
nevertheless sought leave to file an amended complaint to address the alleged deficiencies.
The trial court granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings. The motion to amend
was denied in the same order, which stated that the motion was not addressed as it was
moot. The trial court then denied Appellants’ motion to alter or amend its judgment, finding
that it had applied the correct standard by reviewing only the original complaint. Because
the motion to amend should have been heard before the motions for judgment on the
pleadings and because we conclude the motion to amend should have been granted under
the circumstances, the trial court’s order is reversed as to the denial of the motion to amend
and vacated as to the grant of judgment on the pleadings.

DERRY M. THOMPSON ET AL. v. TIMOTHY A. GRAHAM ET AL.
E2024-00568-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Deborah C. Stevens, Judge

After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement in a case. One of the
parties attempted to avoid the settlement agreement, and the other party filed a motion to
enforce. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that
the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement. The trial court then taxed
the court costs to the non-moving party, despite the parties agreeing that they would equally
divide the court costs between them. We affirm the trial court’s judgment granting the
motion to enforce the settlement agreement. We reverse the trial court’s taxing of court
costs and remand to the trial court on that issue. Because the appellants prevailed on the
issues regarding the assessment of costs, we decline to find that this was a frivolous appeal.

State of Tennessee v. Agness McCurry
E2026-01660-CCA-R10-CD
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

The pro se Defendant, Agness McCurry, has filed an application for extraordinary
appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 10, seeking review of the trial court’s October 8, 2026 denial
of a motion for judgment of acquittal. We have determined that a response from the State
is not necessary in this matter. Tenn. R. App. P. 10(d). Upon review of the application,
we conclude that the Defendant has not demonstrated grounds for extraordinary relief
under Rule 10. Accordingly, the application is DENIED.

State of Tennessee v. Chadrick Rayfield
E2026-01495-CCA-R9-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Steven W. Sword, Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr, Judge Stacy L. Street
Trial Court Judge: Judge James L. Gass

On September 28, 2026, the Fourth Judicial District Public Defender filed an
application for interlocutory appeal on behalf of “Defendants, Nathan Dennis, Stevie
Hurst, and Chadrick Rayfield . . . and similarly situated defendants in all four counties of
the Fourth Judicial District” seeking interlocutory review of the trial court’s September 8,
2026 order denying a motion to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office from
prosecuting cases in the Fourth Judicial District. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Counsel asserts
that interlocutory review of the trial court’s order is required to prevent irreparable injury;
to prevent needless, expensive, and protracted litigation; and to develop a uniform body of
law. Tenn. R. App. P. 9(a)(1), (2), and (3). The State has filed an answer in opposition to
the application. Following our review, the application for interlocutory appeal is
DENIED.

State of Tennessee v. Kyle Scott Wallace
M2026-01655-CCA-T10B-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.; Judge Timothy L. Easter; Judge Jill Bartee Ayers

This matter is before the Court upon petition of the Defendant, Kyle Scott Wallace, for an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.  The Defendant seeks review of the trial judge’s order denying his motion to recuse. Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, the petition is denied.

Ella Tuplin v. Servando Jordan Delgadillo
M2025-01386-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael Wayne Collins

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. 

State of Tennessee v. Michael Howard Wigand
E2025-01275-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Goodwin, Jr.

Defendant, Michael Howard Wigand, pleaded guilty to two counts each of reckless
aggravated assault; vehicular assault; and felony reckless endangerment and one count each
of driving under the influence (DUI); DUI, per se; possession of a handgun while under
the influence; and speeding. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total
effective sentence of seven years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days and ordered
Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the
trial court erred in its application of several enhancement factors and by denying alternative
sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry
of amended judgments consistent with this opinion.

Jerry R. Burkes v. Sysco, Knoxville, LLC, Et. Al.
E2025-02007-SC-R3-WC
Authoring Judge: Vanessa A. Jackson, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Vanessa A. Jackson, Senior Judge

This appeal involves an employee's request for extraordinary benefits. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the Appeals Board and adopt its opinion as set forth in the attached Appendix.

IN RE ESTATE OF JOHN “JOCK” T. DAVIDSON, III
E2025-01598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II, Judge
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor

In this probate case, several potential creditors filed claims against the decedent’s estate in
the Probate Division of the McMinn County Chancery Court (“probate court”), alleging
that lawsuits had been filed against the administrator ad litem of the estate in the McMinn
County Circuit Court (“circuit court”). The administrator ad litem and the decedent’s
surviving spouse filed exceptions to the claims, averring that the alleged creditors had
failed to personally sign or verify the claims as required by statute. The alleged creditors
subsequently amended their claims to personally sign and verify them. However, the
amended claims were filed over one year after the decedent’s death. Following a hearing,
the probate court determined that (1) the alleged creditors’ amended claims related back to
the filing of the original claims and were not time-barred and (2) the circuit court needed
to rule on whether the lawsuits in that court were being properly prosecuted before the
probate court could address the status of the alleged creditors’ claims. The probate court
thereby held the alleged creditors’ claims in abeyance pending a circuit court ruling. The
administrator ad litem and the surviving spouse have appealed. Having determined that
the probate court properly held the alleged creditors’ claims in abeyance, we further
determine that the probate court has not entered a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal and remand the case to the probate court for further proceedings.

U-HAUL CO. OF TENNESSEE v. WARREN ALMQUIST
E2025-01563-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: William T. Ailor, Judge

The appellee-plaintiff sued the appellant-defendant alleging breach of contract and
professional negligence with regard to a contract for architectural services. The plaintiff
ultimately moved for summary judgment on these claims, to which the defendant failed to
respond. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the undisputed facts
entitled the plaintiff to judgment on both claims, and awarded the plaintiff its damages.
The defendant appeals the final judgment. Finding no error in the trial court’s decision,
we affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We further find
this appeal frivolous and grant the plaintiff its costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney’s fees.