Opinions
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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Terrell Howard
The Defendant, Terrance Terrell Howard, was convicted by a Chester County jury of attempted first degree murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration, as a Range I, standard offender, with no release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted first degree murder and that his twenty-four-year sentence for that convictionis excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance Wilks v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Terrance Wilks, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction |
Shelby | Court of Criminal 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 | |
Erik Courtney Lehto v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Erik Courtney Lehto, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of |
Knox | Court of Criminal 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Demande Claude
The Defendant, Demande Claude, was charged with three counts of rape arising from his sexual congress with the adult victim in late 2019. A jury convicted the Defendant of one count of rape and acquitted the Defendant of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twelve years in prison. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting excerpts of the Defendant’s interview with the police; that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction; and that the trial court erred by excluding a statement made by a police officer. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio L. Fuller
In May 2002, a Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Antonio L. Fuller, of six offenses arising from a home invasion. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifty-six years. In December 2025, the Defendant filed a pro se motion seeking to correct alleged clerical errors and omissions in his judgments pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. He argued that the judgments did not accurately reflect how his sentences were to be aligned and that, in his view, the misalignment resulted in an effective sentence longer than the one the trial court actually imposed. The trial court summarily denied the motion, and the Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Ira Earl Shinpaugh
The Defendant, Ira Earl Shinpaugh, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and aggravated neglect of an elderly or vulnerable adult. The trial court sentenced him to an effective term of eight years, with one year to serve in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. While on probation, the Defendant was arrested and later pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant. After a hearing, the trial court found the Defendant in violation of his probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction for the violation. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal 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 | |
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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Rogers
Defendant, Danny Rogers, appeals his conviction for assault, for which he received a sentence of elevenmonths and twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent service. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Ruelas
Defendant, Jose Ruelas, appeals from his convictions for rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery and incest. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictionsfor rape of a child and incest; the trial court erred in admitting the recording of the victim’s forensic interview; and the State failed to elect offenses for rape of a child and incest. After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze v. State of Tennessee
Upon consideration of the applications for permission to appeal of Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze and the record before us, the applications are granted in part and denied in part. In their Rule 11 applications, the Mazes raised an issue concerning their motions to remand to the post-conviction court. We summarily grant the applications as to this limited issue. As to this limited issue, we generally affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of the requests to remand. However, to the extent the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals could be interpreted as addressing the merits of Dr. Levy’s affidavit beyond what was necessary to procedurally deny the Mazes’ request to remand, we vacate that portion of the opinion. To the extent Dr. Levy’s affidavit was not previously considered by the post-conviction court in the proceedings below, and to the extent authorized by law, this vacatur is without prejudice to the Mazes’ ability to seek relief related to Dr. Levy’s affidavit from the post-conviction court in the future. All other issues raised in the applications are denied. The entirety of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals is designated “Not For |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
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 |