Vondell Richmond v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee
This case involves a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the plaintiff, then a member of the Clarksville City Council, was entitled to a declaration of rights concerning alleged communications between the Clarksville City Attorney and the local District Attorney General potentially pertaining to plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiff was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion because there was no justiciable controversy. Having reviewed the record, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kristie M. Haun v. Jason B. Haun Et Al.
This is an appeal regarding the final decree of divorce for this couple. The husband’s inlaws |
Court of Appeals | ||
Heidi Pendas v. Christopher J. Irizarry et al.
This case involves an intrafamily dispute over a home and the alleged indebtedness thereon. The trial court found that the son committed promissory fraud with regard to the conveyance of the home and awarded the mother $180,000.00 in damages as the value of the home at the time of the conveyance. The trial court further dismissed a claim against the daughter related to a loan on the property. Both the son and the mother appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
John Jahen v. Aer Express, Inc. Et Al.
An injured truck driver brought suit against his alleged employer seeking to recover worker’s compensation benefits. The alleged employer did not appear at trial, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Eight months later, the alleged employer moved the trial court to set aside the judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, on the grounds that it did not receive notice of the trial date. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the alleged employer failed to notify the court and the plaintiff of its change of address and that plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the court set aside the judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Michael R. Adams v. Edwin Brittenum ET AL.
A pro se petitioner seeks accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying a motion for |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lyon Roofing, Inc. et al. v. James H. Griffith, Jr. et al.
This appeal involves the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion. In the original action, |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
John Patton Et Al. v. Anita Pearson
After a fire at a rental home, suit was brought against the tenant. During discovery, the tenant sought admissions related to the landlords’ insurance coverage and as to whether the suit was actually a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured. As a result of resistance to disclosure, the tenant moved to compel. The trial court granted the motion. Following admissions indicating that this suit is a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured, the tenant moved for summary judgment asserting that under the Sutton Rule she is an implied co-insured under the landlords’ insurance policy. Opposition to summary judgment was advanced based upon the purported inapplicability of the Sutton Rule and the purported applicability of the collateral source rule. The trial court granted summary judgment to the tenant. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel and summary judgment in favor of the tenant. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Builders, Inc. v. CKF Excavating, LLC
An arbitrator awarded a subcontractor damages against a general contractor. In chancery court, the general contractor moved to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The chancery court denied the motion to vacate and, at the request of the subcontractor, confirmed the arbitration award. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Builders, Inc. v. CKF Excavating, LLC
I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding that the doctrine of prior suit pending is inapplicable here. The majority's discussion of prior suit pending is contained in footnote one of its opinion. Therein, the majority notes that the Rogers Group commenced an action (the "Cheatham County case") in Cheatham County against CKF Excavating and TBI. However, the majority omits the fact that TBI filed a cross-claim against CKF in the Cheatham County case. For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that TBI's cross-claim triggered the doctrine of prior suit pending and vested jurisdiction in the Cheatham County court. As such, the Davidson County court did not have authority to conduct a review of the arbitrator's decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue Et Al.
Citizens of Tennessee may apply to the Tennessee Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for license plates featuring unique, personalized messages. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-210(d)(2) provides that “[t]he commissioner shall refuse to issue any combination of letters, numbers or positions that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that are misleading.” After her personalized plate featuring the message “69PWNDU” was revoked by the Department, Leah Gilliam (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against David Gerregano (the “Commissioner”), commissioner of the Department, as well as the then-Attorney General and Reporter. Plaintiff alleged various constitutional violations including violations of her First Amendment right to Free Speech. The Department and the State of Tennessee (together, the “State”) responded, asserting, inter alia, that the First Amendment does not apply to personalized plate configurations because they are government speech. The lower court, a special three judge panel sitting in Davidson County, agreed with the State. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse, holding that the personalized alphanumeric configurations on vanity license plates are private, not government, speech. We affirm, however, the panel’s decision not to assess discovery sanctions against the State. Plaintiff’s other constitutional claims are pretermitted and must be evaluated on remand because the panel did not consider any issues other than government speech. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Duane Dominy Et Al. v. Davidson County Election Commission
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Davidson County Election Commission, asserting that the Election Commission violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and Metro Code 2.68.020. The chancery court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Election Commission, concluding no violation occurred and that even if there had been a violation it was cured by a subsequent public meeting. Plaintiffs appealed. Defending the chancery court’s judgment, the Election Commission argues that the trial court’s ruling was correct on the merits and that the Plaintiffs are also not entitled to relief because they lack standing and because the matter has become moot. Because the Election Commission presented a well-developed and well-supported argument in favor of mootness and because the Plaintiffs have failed to respond to that argument, we conclude that opposition to the Election Commission’s mootness argument has been waived. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Noah B. Et Al.
A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Aaron Solomon v. Angelia Solomon et al.
Plaintiff sued several defendants over social media posts and the unauthorized use of his and his child’s name, image, and likeness. Plaintiff requested both damages and injunctive relief. In response, defendants petitioned to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Plaintiff then filed notice of a voluntary nonsuit, which defendants opposed. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. Because we conclude that nothing in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 precludes the voluntary dismissal, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Kristopher McMickens v. Vincent J. Perryman, as Administrator of the Estate of Alfred G. Farmer
The plaintiff filed this personal injury action following an automobile accident in which |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda Denise Ware v. Metro Water Services, a Division/Agency of Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee
Plaintiff sued for personal injuries under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging she had experienced a fall due to an unsecure water meter valve cover located in her sister’s yard. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order finding that Plaintiff had not met her burden of proof. Although Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her case, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC Et Al.
A landlord leased property to company A. When company A breached the lease, the landlord filed suit against the company to recover monetary damages. A default judgment was entered against company A and, when company A failed to make any payments on that judgment, the landlord filed suit against company B and company C. The landlord alleged that the corporate veil should be pierced to hold company B and company C liable for company A’s debt because they were the alter egos of company A. After a default judgment was entered against company B and company C, they motioned to have the judgment set aside because the landlord’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The trial court denied the motion to set aside, and the two companies appealed. Discerning that the complaint does not state sufficient factual allegations to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil, we reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Katherine J. Hill v. James D. Hill
This appeal stems from a lengthy and acrimonious divorce, wherein the trial court, inter |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley Allen Garrett v. William Tyler Weiss, Et Al.
The pro se plaintiff appeals the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of his legal |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
City of Benton v. Glenn Austin Whiting
Defendant/Appellant appealed a speeding ticket from Benton City Municipal Court to the Circuit Court for Polk County, Tennessee (the “circuit court”). The City of Benton (the “City”) filed a motion for summary judgment which the circuit court granted on May 18, 2022. Defendant appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Araceli Cordova et al. v. Robert J. Martin
This is an action for malicious prosecution of an attorney’s fee claim. The plaintiffs contend |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Karl S. Jackson v. City of Memphis, et al.
This appeal arises from an employment termination case in which an employee of the Division of Fire Services for the City of Memphis was terminated for a second positive drug test. After receiving notice of his termination, the employee requested an appeal hearing with the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. Following the hearing, the Civil Service Commission issued a decision affirming the termination of his employment. The employee filed a petition for the trial court to review the decision of the Civil Service Commission. The trial court found that substantial and material evidence did not support the decision and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the trial court granted the employee’s petition and remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission. The City of Memphis appeals. We vacate the decision of the trial court and remand to the trial court for entry of an order to remand to the Civil Service Commission with instructions to issue a decision addressing certain deficiencies. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mitchell B.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support. Father also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Emaire E.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellants, Mother and stepfather, filed a |
Court of Appeals | ||
Christopher George Pratt v. Tiffani Hearn Pratt, et al.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a provision in a marital dissolution agreement obligating the father to pay for his son’s “college tuition, expenses, room and board.” The mother filed a petition for contempt and for breach of contract, seeking a judgment for over $15,000 in expenses that the father refused to pay, as he believed that they were not covered by the language of the MDA. The father filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration of his obligations. He asked the trial court to interpret the language of the MDA and also declare that he had fulfilled his obligations under the MDA in light of his son’s struggles in college thus far. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a series of orders interpreting the language of the MDA and defining the categories of expenses that the father was obligated to pay. However, none of the trial court’s orders mention or resolve his request for termination of his obligation. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s orders and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding this issue pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Robert McKeel Bone
At issue is the validity of an amendment to a revocable trust. The specific issue is whether the Settlor’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to execute an amendment to the Robert McKeel Bone Living Trust. The trial court held that the amendment was valid. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals |