Claudia Henneberry and husband, Scott Henneberry v. John (Randy) Simoneaux and wife, Mrs. John (Randy) Simoneaux
Plaintiffs sued parents of minor child for damages for injuries caused by minor child. The Trial Court granted summary judgment. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
George Jerles, et al. v. Margie Phillips, et al.
This case arises from a foreclosure on real property. The Appellants purchased the property from Appellees. Appellees financed the property and the parties executed a promissory note and deed of trust. The Appellants fell behind on their payments and the Appellees accelerated the debt pursuant to the terms of the Note, and ultimately foreclosed on the property. The Appellants filed suit for, inter alia, wrongful foreclosure. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees, and denied Appellants’ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment. Upon disposal of all other claims, the Judgment became final. Appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of a Male Child, D.P.E.
This is a parental termination case. Before trial, the trial court inquired if the parties wanted a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the minor child. The parties indicated that no guardian ad litem was needed. After a contested hearing, the trial court terminated the parental |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company v. The Governors Club Property Owners Association, et al.
The owner of a perpetual natural gas pipeline right-of-way easement filed this Declaratory Judgement action to resolve a dispute with the fee simple owners regarding its right of ingress and egress to replace, upgrade and maintain existing underground pipelines. The trial court declared the rights of the gas company were clearly and unambiguously stated in the grant of easement, that it had the right of ingress and egress stated in the Complaint and enjoined the defendants from obstructing or interfering with those rights. The defendants appeal contending the time and manner of the exercise of the right of easement was ambiguous in the grant, and that the court erred by failing to consider the undue burden on the defendants caused by the time the work was scheduled. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Karen Leigh Chunn v. Donnie Lee Coggins
This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Mosby v. Roland Colson, et al.
The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a pro se lawsuit against numerous prison officials and personnel of the department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Therein, the plaintiff complained that prison officials terminated his prison job in retaliation for his filing numerous grievances against them. The plaintiff alleged violations of the United States Constitution, Tennessee statutes, and |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Blake Moorehead v. Stacy Christine Fugitt (Moorehead) - Dissenting
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case because, in my view, the parenting plan clearly and unequivocally designated Father as the primary residential parent. Therefore, I believe it was necessary for the trial court to determine whether there had been a material change of circumstances and, if so, whether a modification would be in the child’s best interest. Both parties sought to modify the permanent parenting plan. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Blake Moorehead v. Stacy Christine Fugitt (Moorehead)
This is a post-divorce case involving child custody. The parties divorced with an agreed parenting plan for their minor child in which the parties shared equally in residential parenting time and decision-making. When both parties remarried and the child approached school age, the father filed a petition seeking to have the child reside primarily with him. The mother then filed a similar petition. After a comparative fitness analysis, the trial court designated the mother as the primary residential parent. The father now appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Kay Allen, et al. v. John Day, et al. and Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. et al. v. Powers Management, LLC - Concurring
Because of the troubling potential for overexpansion of the “functional equivalency” rationale established in Cherokee and relied upon herein, I write separately to identify the reason for my concurrence. The key to determining when a private entity, through a relationship with a government, subjects its records to public inspection lies, in the first instance, in the analysis of whether the entity is performing a governmental function. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Kay Allen, et al. v. John Day, et al. and Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. et al. v. Powers Management, LLC
A privately-held limited liability company appeals the decision of the trial court which found that the company was the functional equivalent of a government agency in its management of a publically-owned facility thus making its documents subject to the Public Records Act. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry T. Troup, Jr. v. Fischer Steel Corporation
This is a personal injury action involving comparative fault. At a warehouse construction site, the defendant steel subcontractor cut a hole in the roof of the partially constructed warehouse. A temporary cover was put over the hole. A week later, the plaintiff employee of a roofing subcontractor fell through the hole and sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff received full |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Wesley Campbell v. Sheila Darlene Campbell
This is an appeal from a divorce action in which the Appellee, Sheila Darlene Campbell (Ms. Campbell), was awarded 73.6 percent of the parties marital property together with alimony in solido in the amount of $500.00 per month for a period of five years. The Appellant, John Wesley Campbell (Mr. Campbell) has appealed both the division of the marital assets and awarding of alimony. Ms. Campbell appeals the refusal of the trial court to require that Mr. Campbell pay her attorneys' fees and alleges the trial court erred in equally dividing the court costs. We modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the requirement that Mr. Campbell pay alimony in solido and affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Shawn Humphrey, et al. v. Tomkats, Inc., et al.
On this appeal, the Appellant, TomKats, Inc., challenges the propriety of the trial court's awarding Appellee, Shawn Humphrey, judgment for breach of an oral agreement to pay commissions due for sales of sponsorships for an event called Dancin' in the District during the year 1999, failure to pay commissions due on sponsorship and vendor booth revenues pursuant to a written agreement for same event in the year 2000, the subsequent breach of that agreement for the years 2001 and 2002 and dismissal of Appellant's counterclaim for breach of a non-compete agreement and breach of fiduciary responsibilities. Humphrey challenges trial court's findings with regard to the amount of damages for commissions awarded for 1999 and the failure to award prejudgment interest on the judgment for breach of contract. We affirm, as modified. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Daniel R. Howard in the Matter of W.A.H. & A.N.H.
This case stems from a petition to terminate a father’s parental rights. At trial, the chancery court terminated the father’s parental rights as to his two minor children finding that grounds for terminating the father’s parental rights existed under sections 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-113(g)(3) of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David G. Mills v. Shelby County Election Commission, et al.
Plaintiff/Appellant filed suit under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act asserting that the legislation authorizing the use of electronic voting machines in some jurisdictions violated Art. I, § 5 and Art. IV, § 1 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Shelby County Chancery Court dismissed Plaintiff/Appellant’s complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rodney Shane Curtis v. Christy Suzanne Hill (Curtis)
This is a post-divorce change of custody case. The trial court changed custody of the parties’ two minor children from the mother to the father. We hold that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that there had been a material change of circumstances to justify a change in |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Flossie Howard and Ezell Roberson, as legal heirs of decedent Martha Culp, v. Kindred Nursing Centers LTD, F/K/A Vencor Nursing Centers LTD, D/B/A Huntingdon Health & Rehab Center, and Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp, et al.
This case involves a statute of limitations. The plaintiffs’ decedent died in April 2000 at a nursing home. In February 2002, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the nursing home in state court, alleging negligent care by the nursing home. The nursing home removed the action to federal court. Subsequently, the nursing home asserted fault against the hospital that treated the decedent prior to her death. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to name the hospital as a defendant. Later, the federal court entered an order of dismissal as to the nursing home and remanded the remaining proceedings to state court. After that, the defendant hospital filed a motion to dismiss. The state court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs’ action was a medical malpractice action and was not timely under the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Arnold Alphonso Bueno v. Pattie Lynette Bueno Todd
This appeal stems from criminal and civil contempt charges brought by a father of two minor children because of the mother’s failure to pay child support. The father brought his criminal contempt charge based on section 36-5-104 of the Tennessee Code. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court violated the mother’s due process rights during the criminal contempt hearing. The mother asserts on appeal that the chancery court violated her due process rights by (1) allowing the father’s attorney to try the case against her for criminal contempt; (2) failing to provide proper notice to her pursuant to Rule 42 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) failing to provide her with a right to a jury trial; and (4) applying the wrong legal standard when it found her guilty of criminal contempt. Also, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court properly terminated the mother’s visitation rights with her children based on the chancery court’s findings that the mother committed perjury, that the mother was in criminal contempt for violating section 36-5-104 of the Tennessee Code, and that the mother was in civil contempt. We vacate the portions of the chancery court order (1) finding Appellant in criminal |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
City of Jackson v. Mohamed Shehata
A businessman purchased a house in Jackson, Tennessee for the use of his employees. While he did not live at the residence, the businessman allowed the employees to park the equipment used in the furtherance of his business at the residence. The equipment consisted of parking lot sweepers, pickup trucks, and trailers holding lawn-care equipment. The house is located in an area of the city zoned for residential use only. After receiving complaints from the neighbors, the city discussed the situation with the businessman in an effort to have him remove the equipment. When he failed to do so, the city sent him a letter asking that he remove the equipment or face further action. When this did not produce results, the city issued the businessman a citation for violation of the applicable residential zoning ordinance. The city court ruled that the businessman’s conduct violated the ordinance. The businessman appealed to the circuit court, which likewise entered a ruling in favor of the city. The businessman has appealed to this Court arguing that the applicable ordinance is impermissibly vague and that the citation failed to notify him that storing business equipment at the residence constituted a violation of the ordinance. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy Kay Joiner v. James Alden Griffith - Concurring
The majority opinion and some of the participants in this matter have placed significant emphasis on the best interests of the child prong of the modification analysis. In my opinion, a more rigorous analysis of the first prong, i.e., whether there was a material change in circumstances, is in order since that finding is a pre-requisite to consideration of best interest. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy Kay Joiner v. James Alden Griffith
This bitter change of custody proceeding originated with Mother’s filing of a Petition to Stay Visitation based upon concerns that the parties’ youngest child had been potentially exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior while in Father’s custody. Father counterclaimed for a change in custody based upon Mother’s attempt to interfere with Father’s visitation. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Mother’s accusations unfounded, awarded Father joint custody, and decreased Father's child support. Mother asserts that the trial court erred by finding the circumstances had changed sufficiently to modify custody or child support. Since the outcome of the custody issue was dependent on the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there was a material change of circumstances. We, however, have concluded the trial court erred in setting child support, and remand that issue for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Don Murfree McClaran, et al. v. Judith Ann Beardsley, et al.
In this case, the unsuccessful Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of a will offered for probate by the defendants, Judith Ann Beardsley as executrix and Cavalry Bank Trust Department as Administrator ad litem for the estate of Olalee McClaran. Plaintiff challenges the will as a product of fraud in the inducement and undue influence. The proponents filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. From the summary judgment grant against him, Mr. McClaran now appeals. We affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Williams, Sr., et al. v. Linkscorp Tennessee Six, L.L.C., d/b/a Nashboro Golf Club - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority. As stated in the majority opinion, in order for an owner or operator of premises to be held liable for negligence in allowing a dangerous or defective condition to exist on the premises, the plaintiff must prove, in addition to the elements of negligence, that the condition was caused or created by the owner or, if the condition was created by someone other than the owner, that the owner had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident. Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004). It is alleged in the Plaintiffs’ complaint that Mr. Williams was walking down a set of steps on the golf course that were made of railroad crossties and that he fell due to the slippery surface of the step. Mr. Williams testified in his deposition that he evidently hit some mud and moss1 on the stairs, which caused him to fall. He testified that it was “raining real, real hard at that time.” However, Mr. Williams recanted this testimony in a subsequent affidavit wherein he stated, “it may have been sprinkling, but it was not raining hard.” In response to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs filed affidavits of Arthur Overall and Larry Rees, both of whom were golfing with Mr. Williams. Mr. Overall stated that it had been raining heavily early that morning, but at the time we were playing golf, |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Williams, Sr., and wife Janet Williams v. Linkscorp Tennessee Six, L.L.C., d/b/a Nashboro Golf Club
This is a premises liability action. While playing golf in the rain, the plaintiff slipped and fell on stairs on the golf course made of railroad cross ties. The plaintiff claimed that the stairs were covered with mud and some variety of moss or algae, making them dangerously slippery. The plaintiff sued the golf course for negligence. The defendant golf course filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that the plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of notice, either actual or constructive. The trial court also found that the plaintiff’s evidence of a dangerous condition was speculative. We reverse, finding sufficient evidence to create a factual issue on whether a dangerous condition existed and whether the defendant golf course had constructive notice. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Memphis Health Center, Inc. et al. v. Gregory Grant, et al.
This is a derivative action. The board chairman of a nonprofit health care center was found guilty of submitting false claims in violation of federal law. Thereafter, the health care center’s chief executive officer and two of its board members filed a derivative action on behalf of the health care |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
