TRW Steering Systems Company, v. John D. Snavely
This is a suit for declaratory judgment. The petitioner, TRW Koyo Steering Systems Company (“TRW Koyo”), seeks a declaration that a document filed by the defendant, John D. Snavely (“Snavely”), in the Monroe County Register of Deeds’ office is a cloud on its title to real property in Monroe County. The trial court granted TRW Koyo summary judgment, decreeing that the purported lien filed by Snavely “is...of no legal effect and, thus, is lifted and removed from [TRW Koyo’s] title.” Snavely appealed pro se. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
John R. Whalen v. Ruben Roberts and Jo E. Roberts - Concurring
In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on defendants’ premises, the Trial Judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R.C.P. 12.02(6), and plaintiff has appealed. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Super Grip Corporation v. B & D Super Grip, Inc., - Concurring
In this contract action, the Trial Judge entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $50,431.29, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim which had sought damages for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the distributorship agreement. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Paul William McGaffic, v. Janice Elois McGaffic
This is a post-divorce case. Paul William McGaffic filed a petition seeking to modify his child support and periodic alimony in futuro obligations. As pertinent to the issues on |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Theorun J. Murvin and Melody S. Murvin v. Thomas F. Cofer and Cynthia H. Cofer
This dispute arose out of the sale of a residence in Signal Mountain, Tennessee. The trial court found that the sellers, Thomas F. Cofer and wife, Cynthia H. Cofer, had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“the Act”) in connection with the sale of their five-bedroom, two and a halfbath residence to the plaintiffs, Theoren J. Murvin and wife, Melody S. Murvin. The Cofers appealed, arguing that the Act does not apply to this transaction, and that the evidence does not show that the Cofers “knowingly withheld information from the [Murvins] to constitute fraud.” |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Reiko McCullough v. Whitford B. McCullough
This case involves a petition for the modification of alimony payments. The ex-husband |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Ray Brown, v. Phillip L. Davidson
This is a legal malpractice action. The trial court dismissed the action as time-barred by the |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, v. Lois V. Metts
The plaintiffs, Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, sued the defendant, Lois A. Metts as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on July 22, 1994. It is undisputed that the car driven by Ms. Metts struck the car driven by Ms. Snead in the rear while the Snead vehicle was stopped at a stop sign. Ms. Snead sued for injuries and damages and Mr. Snead sued for loss of consortium. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Fairly Hubbard Adelsperger, v. David Robert Adelsperger
This appeal presents a custody and visitation dispute. The parties were declared divorced in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, and the wife received sole custody of the parties’ three minor children. Six months later, the wife moved to Mississippi, and the father petitioned for a change of custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the father custody of the children after concluding that there had been a material change of circumstances and that placing the children in the father’s custody would be in their best interests. The mother asserts on this appeal that the evidence does not support the trial court’s decision. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Hammock and wife, Ruby Hammock, et al., v. Sumner County, Tennessee
This interlocutory appeal involves the right of a party to discover the appraisal report of a testifying expert in a condemnation case. The Circuit Court for Sumner County denied the property owners’ request for the appraisal report in order to prepare to depose the appraiser on the grounds that the report is “privileged, as work porduct [sic]” but granted the property owners permission to apply for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur that an interlocutory appeal will prevent needless, expensive, and protracted litigation in this case. Because the application and the response thereto fully set forth the parties’ positions and the material facts, we dispense with further briefing and oral argument and proceed to the merits in order to save the parties additional time and expense.1 We vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case with instructions to enter an order compelling the production of the testifying appraiser’s reports. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Fredrika A. Steiner v. The Parman Corporation - Concurring
I concur in the result reached in Judge Todd’s opinion. My only reasonfor writing separately is to focus on what I perceive to be decisive in this case: the fact that the defendant did not violate a duty to the plaintiff. In that way, I avoid the nagging problem of the court apportioning fault in a case in which the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fredrika A. Steiner v. The Parman Corporation - Concurring
The plaintiff, Fredrika A. Steiner, has appealed from the summary dismissal of her suit against the defendant, The Parman Corporation, for damages for personal injury sustained in a fall on the premises of defendant. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Antonio Sweatt v. Robert Conley, et al.
This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Antonio Sweatt, from an order of the Davidson County Chancery Court dismissing Appellant’s petition against respondents/appellees Robert Conley, William Calhoun, Dale Basham, Shelia Roberts, Hattie Moore, Edna Freeman, and Dr. Harold Butler. The chancery court dismissed Appellant’s petition with prejudice after determining Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Phillip Gene McDowell vs. Roberta Grissom Boyd - Concurring
This appeal involves a posthumous paternity dispute. While the decedent’s estate was pending in probate court, a person claiming to be the decedent’s son filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Van Buren County against the decedent’s estate and his widow seeking to establish the petitioner’s right to inherit part of the decedent’s estate. The trial court heard the evidence without a jury and determined that the petitioner had presented clear and convincing evidence that he was the decedent’s biological son. The decedent’s wife asserts on this appeal that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion. We affirm the judgment. |
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
William W. Goad, Jr., v. Alphonse Pasipanodya, M.D., Meharry Hubbard Hospital, Frank Thomas, M.D. and Larry Woodlee
This appeal involves a prisoner’s medical malpractice suit stemming from the repair of an epigastric hernia. The prisoner filed a pro se complaint against the surgeon who had performed the surgery, the hospital where the surgery was performed, and a physician and physician’s assistant employed by the prison. The Circuit Court for Davidson County first granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the physician’s assistant and later granted the summary judgment motion filed by the hospital. The prisoner appealed from the order summarily dismissing his claims against the hospital. We have determined that the prisoner’s appeal must be dismissed because he has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) and 4(a). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra K. Baker (Abroms), v. State of Tennessee, ex rel., Gary D. Baker
This appeal involves a trial court’s discretion not to employ the mechanisms in Title IV-D for the payment and collection of child support. In a post-divorce proceeding seeking changes in visitation and child support arrangements, the Circuit Court for Davidson County declined to order the obligor parent to execute a wage assignment or to pay child support through the trial court clerk. On this appeal, the Attorney General and Reporter, on behalf of the Title IV-D contractor who represented the custodial parent, asserts that the trial court was statutorily required to direct the non-custodial parent to pay child support through the trial court clerk. We agree. Even though requiring the child support to be paid through the trial court clerk will, in this case, extract an unnecessary five percent penalty from the noncustodial spouse, paying child support through the trial court clerk is statutorily required in Title IV-D proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee O/B/O Juanita Whitehead v. Mattie (Whitehead) Thompson
This appeal involves a trial court’s authority to enter and enforce a child support award when proceedings involving the child were already pending in another court. After the Wayne County Juvenile Court gave custody of the child to the State in a dependent and neglect proceeding, the Department of Human Services filed separate petitions in the Chancery Court for Wayne County seeking to require the child’s divorced parents to pay child support. The trial court directed both parents to pay child support to the State. After the State’s repeated efforts over five years to require the mother to pay child support, she questioned the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction because the dependent and neglect proceeding was still pending in the juvenile court. The trial court denied the mother’s motion to dismiss, and on this appeal, the mother renews her claim that the trial court should have deferred to the juvenile court. We agree and, therefore, reverse the order denying the mother’s motion to dismiss. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Joni Smart Holt v. Jack Sanders Holt
This appeal involves the dissolution of a nineteen-year marriage. The wife filed suit for divorce in the Chancery Court for Sumner County but then suspended the proceedings while the parties attempted to reconcile. The efforts proved fruitless, and, following a bench trial, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The trial court also awarded the wife custody of the parties’ two children, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife spousal support as well as additional funds for her legal expenses. The husband takes issue on this appeal with the financial aspects of the divorce decree, including the division of the marital property, the long-term spousal support award, and the additional award to defray the wife’s legal expenses at trial. While the trial court properly divided the marital property and awarded the wife funds for her legal expenses at trial, we modify the spousal support award to provide for rehabilitative alimony and for reduced longterm spousal support. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
David McAlister v. Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., formerly known as Empire Enterprises, Inc., et al
This suit involves an action for the redemption of preferred stock. The trial court found that the stock could be redeemed even though the redemption would render the corporation unable to pay its debts in the normal course of business. We reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Blalock Yates v. William Mark Yates
Defendant William Mark Yates (Husband) appeals the final divorce decree entered by the trial court which awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child to Plaintiff/Appellee Janice Blalock Yates (Wife), ordered the Husband to pay child support and alimony in solido to the Wife, and distributed the parties’ real and personal property. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE: Chad Andolino; Charles Alaln Mix and Lorena May Mix v. Robert Barton - Concurring
This case presents for review the decision of the Chancery Court of Decatur County finding that the Defendant, Robert Barton (“Father”) did not abandon his son, Chad Andolino (“Son”) and, therefore, dismissing Plaintiffs’, Charles and Lorena Mix (“Mixes”), petition for adoption. The Mixes appealed. For reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
John Brown, v. County of Shelby
This appeal concerns an action by the appellant, John Brown (Brown), to recover workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, the appellee, County of Shelby (County), who has not elected to come within the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Brown alleges that he sustained on-the-job injuries while employed by the County as a counselor at the Shelby County Jail. The record reflects that the County has implemented its own policy whereby it compensates its employees for on-the-job injuries and relies to some extent on the Workers’ Compensation Act as a guide in determining benefits. At trial, it was established that under said policy, the County had paid Brown’s temporary disability benefits and that Brown sought only permanent disability benefits and the medical expenses incurred from Dr. John P. Howser. The trial court awarded a permanent partial disability of 7% to the body as a whole and entered a judgment for Brown in the amount of $5,863.68. No award was made for Dr. Howser’s expenses. Brown appeals, identifying the issues for review as follows: |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John H. Fournier v. M. V. Tichenor and Bowling, Bowling, and Associates
Plaintiff-Appellant, John H. Fournier (“Fournier), appeals the order of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, M. V. Tichenor (“Tichenor”) and Bowling, Bowling & Associates (“Law Firm”), on Fournier’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Bradfield v. Billy Compton, et al
This case involves a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, filed by a state prisoner against employees of the Tennessee Department of Corrections. One defendant is a physician employed by Department. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his claims against all defendants. We affirm. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
Annette Dubose, v. Debbie Ramey
Plaintiff/Appellant, Annette Dubose (“Dubose”), appeals the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for a new trial and specifically finding that the jury verdict and the judgment previously entered in this case were proper and correct. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals |
