Richard Williams, III v. State of Tennessee
A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Richard Williams, III, of several offenses, including attempted first degree murder. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after finding that it was untimely and that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court did not adequately consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his ability to access the prison library and, therefore, to timely file his petition. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Christopher James Funk, Sr.
A Hawkins County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher James Funk, Sr., of driving |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hooper Randall Brock v. Jonathan Eick
This appeal came on to be heard upon the record from the Circuit Court for Meigs |
Court of Appeals | ||
Thomas Joseph Nedumthottathil v. Siby John Thomas
In this divorce action, the court limited Wife’s proof at trial as a sanction for her failure to respond to pre-trial discovery. After the trial, the court granted the parties an absolute divorce, equitably divided the marital estate, adopted a permanent parenting plan for their minor children, and declined to award Wife spousal support. Wife argues that the court erred in limiting her proof at trial, dividing the marital estate, and denying her request for spousal support. Discerning no abuse of discretion in these decisions, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua Aaron Bradley v. Jennifer Racheal Bradley (Odom)
A father filed a petition to modify the existing parenting plan. The trial court found a material change in circumstances had occurred and it was in the child’s best interest to award custody to the father. Because the evidence does not preponderate against either finding, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
American Business Supply, Inc. et al v Tennessee State Board of Equalization
This case concerns the procedure used by the Tennessee State Board of Equalization when it determined the 2018 appraisal ratio for Shelby County. In 2017, Shelby County real property was reappraised. Accordingly, the Board of Equalization set the County’s 2017 appraisal ratio at 1.000. In 2018, the Board of Equalization used the 2017 reappraisal to set the Shelby County 2018 appraisal ratio at 1.000. Appellants—owners of commercial tangible personal property in Shelby County—challenged the Board’s methodology as violative of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-1605 and 67-5-1606 and unsupported by substantial and material evidence. Following review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, the trial court determined that: (1) the Board did not violate Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-5-1605 and 67-5-1606 when it set the County’s appraisal ratio at 1.000 in 2018; (2) the Board’s decision was supported by substantial and material evidence; and (3) the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
VFL Properties, LLC v. John Kenneth Greene, Et Al.
This lawsuit arises from a real property/boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. The trial court found that a prior circuit court condemnation judgment vesting title to the Knoxville Community Development Corporation “bars the claim of [the plaintiff] as an impermissible collateral attack upon the condemnation judgment.” Thus, the trial court ruled that the condemnation judgment barred the plaintiff’s adverse possession claim against the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deonta Baskin
The Defendant, Deonta Baskin, was convicted of first degree murder and possession of a |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie M. Lazaroff (Coons) v. David A. Lazaroff, Sr.
This post-divorce appeal concerns the trial court’s finding of contempt against the father for his failure to pay child support and the court’s calculation of his support arrearage owed. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
James Miguel Vilas v. Timothy Love
In this health care liability action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the appellee |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamaal Mondrew Mayes
The Appellant appeals his convictions of second degree murder and possession of a firearm |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
Because the circuit court orders from which the appellant has sought to appeal do not |
Court of Appeals | ||
Edward Ronny Arnold v. Moore & Smith Tree Care, LLC
This appeal involves a contract for the removal of a tree. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant tree company. We affirm and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Gregory B. Johnson
Appellants, Amelia Vaughn and Gemelia Johnson appeal the March 3, 2023 order of the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lance T. Sandifer
The Defendant, Lance T. Sandifer, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. In his motion, the Defendant argued that his sentences were illegal because he was not granted a juvenile transfer hearing and that the criminal court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him. Following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leonard Blackstock v. State of Tennessee
This appeal concerns an order of dismissal entered by the Tennessee Claims Commission. Though Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, this Court is unable to review any of the issues due to Appellant’s noncompliance with applicable appellate briefing requirements. Because all of Appellant’s issues on appeal have been waived due to his failure to comply with the appellate briefing requirements, we affirm the judgment of the Tennessee Claims Commission. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robin M. McNabb v. Gregory Harrison
This case involves an election contest filed by the plaintiff based on the defendant’s residency eligibility for the office of Lenoir City Municipal Court Judge. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the defendant had complied with article VI, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution because the clause required, inter alia, that he be a resident within the judicial district, not necessarily within the city limits, to preside over the municipal court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with a general sessions court. The |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Willie Nathan Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Nathan Jones, appeals from the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. Petitioner argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to contemporaneously object to the prosecutor’s closing argument and failing to object to the prosecutor’s use of the term “victim” when referring to a State’s witness. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nathan A. Wallace v. Blake Ballin ET AL.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Booker v. James Michael Booker
This is an appeal from a divorce in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (the “trial court”). Donna Booker (“Wife”) and Mike Booker (“Husband”) married for the first time in 1993 and divorced in 1998. They remarried shortly thereafter in February of 1999. The day of their second wedding, Husband and Wife executed a prenuptial agreement addressing Husband’s interest in his family’s steel erection business. Wife filed the current divorce action in the trial court in February of 2020, and a trial was held May 3 and 4, 2022, and July 6, 2022. The trial court ordered the parties divorced, divided the marital estate, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro. Finding that the prenuptial agreement was valid, the trial court determined that Husband’s interest in his family business was separate property. Wife appeals. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
John H. Packard, IV v. Jonathan R. Bentley Et Al.
The plaintiff, John H. Packard, IV (“Plaintiff”) was struck by a vehicle driven by Jonathan |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Dewayne Richards
Defendant, Jimmy Dewayne Richards, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of burglary, theft of property, and vandalism. On appeal, the Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress. We cannot adequately review on the record before us whether the search was supported by probable cause or whether Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. The trial court sua sponte raised the standing issue after all the proof was presented at the hearing and did not comply with its duties to judge the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve factual issues in deciding the motion to suppress. We therefore remand this case for a new hearing on the motion to suppress in accordance with the instructions in this opinion. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jody Higgins v. Corecivic, Inc. Et Al.
This appeal concerns an inmate’s lawsuit over injuries he sustained from falling off a top |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jason M. Peterson v. Jodi L. Carey
Jason M. Peterson (“Plaintiff”) was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Jodi L. Carey |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Aaliyah P.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support; abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; persistent conditions; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The mother also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We reverse the trial court’s finding on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans because the initial permanency plan does not appear in the record, but we affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |