Andrew Hasley v. Harleigh Lott
This appeal arises from a juvenile court’s determination of a permanent parenting plan, in which the trial court found all best interest factors to be equal between the parents, granted Mother and Father equal parenting time, and designated them as “Joint Primary Residential Parents.” Mother raises several issues. Generally, she contends that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s findings that all applicable best interest factors were equal between Mother and Father and that the trial court abused its discretion in crafting the permanent parenting plan. We find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings concerning two of the best interest factors. We also find that the court erred, as a matter of law, by designating the parties as joint primary residential parents in the absence of an agreement to do so. In accordance with these findings, we designate Mother as primary residential parent, affirm the trial court’s parenting plan in all other respects, and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Emergency Medical Care Facilities, P.C. v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss its class action allegations against two defendants on the basis of collateral estoppel. Specifically, the trial court ruled that while a prior determination that Appellant was not entitled to class action certification was not a final judgment on the merits, due to a dismissal of that case without prejudice, the ruling was “sufficiently firm” to have preclusive effect, citing the Restatement (Second) Of Judgments. Because Tennessee law requires a final adjudication on the merits for a judgment to be entitled to preclusive effect, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christine L. Manion Et Al. v. The Baldini, Pryor, and Lammert Partnership
The owners of certain real property sought a prescriptive easement over the parking lot of an adjacent neighbor. The trial court granted the prescriptive easement over the entirety of the neighbor's parking lot. The neighbor appealed. Discerning that the record contains clear and convincing evidence of all the requirements for a prescriptive easement, we affirm. We modify the trial court's judgment, however, by limiting the scope of easement to the route followed when the route was first established. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
George Gary Ingram v. Dr. Michael Gallagher, Et Al.
This is a health care liability case. George Gary Ingram ("Ingram") filed a health care |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re N.M.
This appeal arises from the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child |
Court of Appeals | ||
Denise Phillips Jones v. Kelvin Dominic Jones
This appeal arises from a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the parties signed an antenuptial agreement that included a provision whereby Husband’s son from a prior marriage would be entitled to one-fourth of the value of the marital property upon divorce. During proceedings in the trial court, Husband filed a petition to hold Wife in criminal contempt. The trial court dismissed Husband’s petition for contempt, granted Husband a divorce on the uncontested ground of adultery, found the provision regarding Husband’s son to be unenforceable, and equitably divided the parties’ marital property. The trial court also declined to award Husband his requested discretionary fees. Primarily based on Husband’s failure to follow briefing requirements, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on all issues. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Madeline Luckett Nolan v. Gregory Stewart Nolan
The circuit court, finding that Father committed twenty-one counts of criminal contempt, |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Save Our Fairgrounds et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee et al.
Citizens sought to stop the construction and operation of a soccer stadium at The Fairgrounds Nashville. The plaintiffs advanced a plethora of legal theories in support of their claims that the soccer development violated the Metro Charter. After a month-long trial, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On appeal, the plaintiffs raise two issues: (1) whether the trial court’s orders were final; and (2) whether the court erred in ruling that the Metro Charter did not require a public referendum before any demolition and new development could occur at the Fairgrounds. We conclude that the court’s orders were final. But, because the challenged demolition and construction have already happened, we dismiss this appeal as moot. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Williams v. The Lewis Preservation Trust Et Al.
In 2012, Robert and Elizabeth Ann Lewis created a revocable trust and transferred thereto |
Court of Appeals | ||
Abigail Lynn Sevigny v. Warren Maxwell Sevigny
In this post-divorce dispute, the wife filed a petition for criminal contempt. After testimony was heard, the parties announced in broad terms that they had reached a settlement. Thereafter, the parties could not agree on the terms of the settlement. At a hearing on the husband’s motion requesting approval of his proposed order, the court dismissed the petition on grounds of double jeopardy. We have determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the case and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Trust of Nellie B. Fontanella
This is an appeal from an order requiring a trustee to provide an updated accounting to a beneficiary at the beneficiary’s expense. Because the order does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Knox Community Development Corporation v. William G. Mitchell
This is an appeal from a final order entered on January 17, 2023, in the Knox County |
Court of Appeals | ||
John Benbow v. L&S Family Entertainment, LLC, Et Al.
This case concerns claims of negligence against several people and entities for allegedly serving alcohol to and/or failing to protect a 20-year-old man who died in a car accident while intoxicated. John D. Benbow (“Plaintiff”), individually and as next of kin to his son, Jacob N. Benbow, deceased, filed a wrongful death action in the Sumner County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”) against the defendants, L&S Family Entertainment, LLC d/b/a Strike & Spare (“L&S”); JPZ, LLC d/b/a Silverado Rivergate Sports Bar & Grill (“Silverado’s”); 1 Rancho Cantina, LLC (“Rancho Cantina”); Jody D. McCutchen; Brandi McCutchen; and Brenon D. McCutchen (“the McCutchens”). Certain of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for Rancho Cantina, L&S, Brandi, and Jody. 2 However, the Trial Court denied summary judgment for Brenon.3 Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the Trial Court’s grant of summary judgment to Jody because Plaintiff failed to create any genuine issue of material fact that Jody took charge of Jacob. However, we reverse the Trial Court’s grants of summary judgment to Rancho Cantina, L&S, and Brandi, as genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against those parties. We observe that the standard is comparative fault, not contributory negligence. Whether Jacob was at least 50% at fault for comparative fault purposes is a question not properly resolvable at this summary judgment stage under the facts of this case. We thus affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. We remand to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Snodgrass v. AHA Mechanical Contractors, LLC
Plaintiff, Defendant’s former employee, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Clayton D. Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center
This appeal concerns a complaint for health care liability. Although Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) provides for an extension of the applicable statutes of limitations in health care liability actions when pre-suit notice is given, it also specifies that “[i]n no event shall this section operate to shorten or otherwise extend the statutes of limitations or repose applicable to any action asserting a claim for health care liability, nor shall more than one (1) extension be applicable to any [health care] provider.” After a prior lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff provided new pre-suit notice and refiled in reliance on the Tennessee saving statute and an extension under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c). The trial court dismissed the refiled complaint with prejudice, however, holding, among other things, that Plaintiff could not utilize the statutory extension in his refiled action because he had already utilized a statutory extension in the first lawsuit. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Clayton D. Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center - Concurring
Although I ultimately agree with the majority’s conclusion, I write this separate concurrence to express my concerns with the result in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Zayda C.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his child. Following a |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Paisley J.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the trial |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Travis G. Bumbalough v. Rachel M. Hall
This appeal arises from a petition to establish parentage and a parenting plan pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36–2–311 for a child born out of wedlock. In finding that the statutory best interest factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) favored the father, the trial court designated the father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child and ruled that the child would live with the father in Tennessee during the school year and spend the majority of the summers and holidays with Mother in Texas. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
John Mark Bowers v. Carlton J. Ditto, Et Al.
In this quiet title action, the pro se defendant appeals the trial court’s decision to permit |
Court of Appeals | ||
Kimberly Ann King v. Jackie Lee King, Jr.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 6, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter v. LLPS, Inc., Et Al.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissal entered in favor of all defendants in a civil enforcement action involving violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Government Imposters and Deceptive Advertising Act. We vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hayes Family Partnership ET AL. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
This is an insurance policy coverage dispute between Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Adam T. Huffstutter v. Metropolitan Historical Zoning Commission of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
The appellant is a property owner who sought review of a decision by the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Historic Zoning Commission. The appellant property owner appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re A.H. Et Al.
This is a dependency and neglect case predicated on an allegation of severe abuse. The juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected and found that one of the children had been subject to severe child abuse at the hands of the children’s father. The father appealed to circuit court. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court found the allegations of severe abuse were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence and declined to find the children dependent and neglected. The Department of Children’s Services, the children’s guardian ad litem, and the children’s mother appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in concluding that the evidence of severe abuse was not clear and convincing. Based on our review of the entire record, we find there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of severe abuse. Therefore, we affirm the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Appeals |