Shaun Alexander Hodge v. State of Tennessee
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrice Livingston
The Defendant, Demetrice Livingston, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky L. Boren v. Hill Boren, PC, et al.
In this lawsuit between former law partners, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarrett Michael Tolley
The Defendant, Jarrett Michael Tolley, pleaded guilty to multiple theft- and fraud-related |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Marquis Tharpe
The Defendant, Donnie Marquis Tharpe, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anglin G. Wright v. Lisa Robison
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered on April 5, 2023. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Ronny Arnold v. Deborah Malchow et al.
This is the second appeal in this matter involving a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 23, 2019, in Nashville. Upon remand, following dismissal of the first appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a final judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual tortfeasor and subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against his underinsured motorist insurance carrier. The plaintiff has appealed. Determining that the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his negligence claim, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the tortfeasor. We further vacate the dismissal of the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist claim against his automobile insurer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Vandity A. Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a personal injury action arising out of a car accident in a state parking lot. The original defendants raised the defense of comparative fault by the State of Tennessee, and the plaintiff filed a notice of claim in the Division of Claims and Risk Management and, later, filed a complaint in the Claims Commission. After the Claims Commission transferred the matter to circuit court, the State moved to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the court granted the motion. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119, the complaint initiating a suit against the State was filed in the Claims Commission after the expiration of the 90-day grace period provided by the statute. Furthermore, we find the plaintiff’s argument that the State waived the statute of limitations defense unpersuasive. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Jerome Hardison
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeremy Jerome Hardison, of first degree |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey George Tulley
Jeffrey George Tulley, Defendant, pleaded guilty to three counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, three counts of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. At sentencing, the trial court imposed three concurrent sentences of eleven years on the drug counts and a consecutive four-year sentence for the firearm counts, as a Range I offender, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pamela Diane Stark v. Joe Edward Stark
This appeal arises from a divorce action filed in 2018. The wife appeals from the trial |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eula Beasley
The Defendant-Appellant, Eula Beasley, entered a guilty plea in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated robbery (count one) and possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence (count two), for which he received an eight-year sentence for each count with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy L. Morton v. Davidson County Government
The plaintiff made a claim for the return of bond money he paid to a private bonding company to secure his release from jail for charges that were pending and then nolled nearly 22 years before the filing of the present cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court held that the complaint, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences, fails to articulate any facts or legal authority showing a right to relief against the defendant. Further, the court determined that if the gravamen of the claim is a tort action for conversion, the claim was also properly dismissed because it would have accrued long ago and is therefore barred under the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Toby S. Wilt, Jr. v. ESPACES Franklin, LLC et al.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a former CEO seeking funds owed to him from his company and two of its subsidiaries. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Walker
Defendant, Darrin Walker, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for two counts of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
City of Memphis v. The Pension Board of The City of Memphis, et al.
This appeal arises out of the chancery court’s affirmance of the decision of the administrative law judge granting a Line of Duty Disability (“LODD”) pension to a Memphis Firefighter. The appeal hinges on a question of law concerning the meaning of Memphis Code of Ordinances § 25-1(27), which states that an employee is eligible for a LODD pension if:
[A] physical . . . condition arising as the direct and proximate result of an accident sustained by a participant, . . . while in the actual performance of duties for the city at some definite time and place . . . which totally and permanently prevents him or her from engaging in the duties for which he or she was employed by the city. The determination of the line-of-duty disability of a participant shall be made on medical evidence by at least two qualified physicians.
City of Memphis Code of Ordinances, § 25-1(27) (emphasis added).
Three qualified physicians testified, but only one of them found that both factors were established. In ruling in favor of the firefighter, the administrative law judge and the chancellor both held that it was not necessary that each qualified physician state that the injuries were caused while in the actual performance of duties for the City at a definite place and time and that he was permanently disabled from continuing in his chosen role as a consequence of that injury. The City of Memphis insists that this was error, contending that “the ordinance clearly requires at least two physicians to opine that the employee sustained a work-related injury which caused his/her disability.” Based on the plain language of the ordinance, we agree with the City’s interpretation of the evidentiary requirements for a LODD pension; we therefore reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the decision of the Pension Board of the City of Memphis, which denied the application for a LODD pension. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William David Phillips
A Jefferson County jury convicted the defendant, William David Phillips, of four counts |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luther Ray Mabe, Jr.
The defendant, Luther Ray Mabe, Jr., appeals his Hawkins County Criminal Court jury |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luther Ray Mabe, Jr.
I fully concur with my respected colleagues’ reasoning and judgment as it relates to |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Lynn Collier
The Defendant, Danny Lynn Collier, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Ervin Jack Quinn
A surviving spouse brought this action against the estate of her deceased husband and his ex-wife and children. The surviving spouse sought to set aside the decedent’s inter vivos transfer of three properties to the ex-wife and children and/or to have the value of the transferred property included in the decedent’s net estate under Tennessee Code Annotated § 31-1-105, which applies when a decedent transferred property “with an intent to defeat the surviving spouse’s elective or distributive share.” The decedent conveyed the properties within three days of his death by quitclaim deed for no consideration other than love and affection. One of the deeds was executed by the decedent, and the other two deeds were executed by the decedent’s attorney-in-fact, his daughter. The chancellor referred all issues in dispute to a special master who found that the properties conveyed by the attorney-in-fact were conveyed with the intent to defeat the plaintiff’s elective share but that the third tract, which was conveyed by the decedent, was not. The chancellor adopted the report and recommendations of the special master. This appeal followed. After considering the factors identified in Finley v. Finley, 726 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) and the totality of the circumstances, we hold that all three properties were conveyed with the intent to defeat the plaintiff’s elective share. Thus, we reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion, including a recalculation of the surviving spouse’s elective share based on a net estate that includes all three properties at issue. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Sharon Weatherly v. Eastman Chemical Company
The plaintiff brought an action seeking damages for diminution of real property value, |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Andrew L.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the trial court’s order |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Shanynthia Gardner
Following a bench trial, Shanynthia Gardner (“Defendant”) was convicted of four counts |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamauri Ransom v. State of Tennessee
A Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jamauri Ransom, of aggravated robbery |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |