Sarah Chapman v. Chris Wade
The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Tray Simmons v. Dr. Shahidul Islam et al.
The Appellant brought suit against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s clinic, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. After appellate briefing and oral argument but prior to the filing of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jenifer Hutcherson Hall, et al. v. Robertson County, Tennessee
This appeal arises from a general claim of negligence stemming from a dog bite. The plaintiffs adopted a dog from an animal shelter owned and operated by the defendant, a governmental entity. The dog bit one of the plaintiffs shortly after adoption. The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the shelter had a duty to warn them of the dog’s dangerous propensities but failed to do so. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the incident, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish the defendant owed them a duty to warn. Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Retail Direct, LLC v. Payano Express, LLC et al.
An employee suffered severe injuries while working for a subcontractor and sought workers’ compensation benefits from the logistics company that had retained the subcontractor. In response, the logistics company filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that it was exempt from liability as a “common carrier.” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the logistics company, concluding that the company’s federal operating authority established its common carrier status as a matter of law. The injured employee appeals, arguing that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the logistics company’s status because it exclusively served a single customer rather than the general public. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jo Kelly Stephenson v. 2300 & 2306 SSR Property Trust et al.
Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to recuse the trial court judge, which raised allegations of bias related to, inter alia, the treatment of her pro se status and her lack of personal notice of court filings, the lack of response to her ex parte communication, the failure to report alleged attorney misconduct, and the entry of certain court orders. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jayesh Patel et al. v. Shailesh Patel et al.
This appeal arises from the denial of a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-17-101 to -110. The plaintiff-respondents, Jayesh Patel, Devesh Patel, and Vimal Patel (“Plaintiffs”),filed suit in Tennessee asserting claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process against the defendants-petitioners, Shailesh Patel, BMGPC, LLC, Parul N. Patel, Dharmesh Patel, Ujval Patel, and Jyoti Patel (collectively, “Defendants”),who had initiated a related action against Plaintiffs in California state court. In response to the Tennessee action, Defendants filed a petition to dismiss pursuant to the TPPA, asserting that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in response to Defendants’ exercise of their rights to petition and of free speech. Plaintiffs responded to the TPPA Petition and sought to amend their complaint to add claims that predated the filing of the California lawsuit. At a joint hearing on both the TPPA Petition and the Motion to Amend, the trial court granted the Motion to Amend and instructed Defendants that, if they proceeded on the TPPA Petition, the court would apply it to the First Amended Complaint. Defendants decided to press forward with the TPPA Petition. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court denied the TPPA Petition, concluding that the statute did not apply because Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the action was based on, related to, or in response to their exercise of the rights to petition or of free speech. This appeal followed. We respectfully disagree with the trial court’s decision. We conclude that Defendants established a prima facie case that Plaintiffs initiated this action in response to Defendants’ exercise of both their right to petition and their right to free speech. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jessica Hampton et al. v. Daniel Millsaps et al.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Public Participation Act mandates dismissal of Appellants/Builders’ slander claim and whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees. After Appellants filed a construction lien against Appellees/Homeowners’ property, Appellees filed a complaint against Appellants with the Tennessee Board of Licensing Contractors, wherein they asserted that Appellants did not have a valid Tennessee contractor’s license. After Appellees filed the instant lawsuit, Appellants filed a counter-complaint, asserting, as relevant here, a claim for defamation based on allegedly false statements made to the Board regarding Appellants’ licensure. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ slander claim. Appellees’ motion, which was predicated on the dismissal provision contained in the Tennessee Public Participation Act, asserted that Appellants’ defamation claim was filed in response to Appellees’ exercise of their constitutional right to free speech on a matter of public concern. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion for partial dismissal and awarded attorney’s fees. Appellants appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Valesia Kennard v. Mid-South Transportation Management, Inc., et al.
To resolve Employee’s workers’ compensation claim, Employee and Employer entered |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Paradigm Building Group, LLC v. Jeffrey D. Fennessey et al.
A dispute over the construction of a custom home went to arbitration. After the arbitrator found in favor of the builder, the builder applied for confirmation of the arbitration award. The homeowners responded by moving to vacate. The trial court vacated the award and sent the case back to arbitration. In the court’s view, the arbitrator exceeded his powers by deciding the case based on a defense the builder did not raise and by failing to postpone the hearing. Because the homeowners failed to establish a basis to vacate the award under the Uniform Arbitration Act, we reverse. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Estate of Esther Sandra McClanahan
This is an interlocutory appeal, filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, from a clerk and master’s denial of a motion to recuse. Finding that the appeal of the clerk and master’s ruling should have gone to the Chancellor, we dismiss the appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Tom Slagle et al. v. Church of the First Born of Tennessee et al.
In protracted litigation concerning a dispute over church property, a new chancellor took office several years after a jury verdict, post-trial motions, and an order granting partial summary judgment. The new chancellor set aside the jury verdict and the summary judgment order. We have determined that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and in setting aside the order granting partial summary judgment.Therefore, we reverse and remand. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
SAP America, Inc. v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
The Tennessee Department of Revenue issued a business tax assessment against a companybased on the company’s gross receipts from sales of computer software, cloud hosting, and cloud-based services.The company challenged the assessment by filing a complaint in the chancery court. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted summaryjudgmentto the company, finding that the sales of computer software and cloud hosting were not subject to business tax. The court upheld the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s assessment of business tax against the company’s sales of cloud-based services. Lastly, the courtfound that the company was the prevailing party and awarded the company attorney’s fees pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1803(d). The Tennessee Department of Revenue appealed. Discerning that the court erred in its determination that the company’s cloud hosting sales were not subject to business tax, we reverse that portion of the court’s decision. Because this affects the attorney’s fees award, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Blaylock MD JD v. University of Tennessee Martin
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in circuit court against the University of Tennessee (at Martin), alleging twelve separate counts relating to the University’s handling of a charitable gift made by the plaintiff. The claims ranged from breach of contract to defamation to infliction of emotional distress, among others.The circuit court granted the University’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Tennessee Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over suits against the Statefor the torts alleged by the plaintiff and any breach of contract claim. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship of Betty A. Winston
Appellant was named conservator over her mother in 2019 over her sibling’s objection and posted a $25,000.00 surety bond in connection with the conservatorship. After several years in which accountings were approved by the trial court, a new judge was designated to preside over the case. The new trial judge refused to approve several of the expenses in the later accountings, finding that they were either not for the benefit of the ward or constituted payment to the conservator without prior court approval. As a result, the trial court ruled that the conservator was required to reimburse over $30,000.00 in expenses to the conservatorship account. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that these expenses were unauthorized and directing reimbursement, as well as in granting a judgment to the conservator’s surety for the amount it paid to reimburse the conservatorship account pursuant to the surety bond. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
JOHN WILLIAM OWENS ET.AL v. MEREDITH ELIZABETH OWENS
In this matter involving alleged violations of federal and state wiretapping statutes, |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Deirdre Wilson v. Regions Bank
Plaintiff/Appellant has filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2, seeking review of the Davidson County General Sessions Court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to recuse the General Sessions judge in a civil warrant proceeding against Defendant/Appellee. We conclude this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 10B appeal from the General Sessions Court of Davidson County when it is not exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a court of record. Accordingly, this appeal is transferred to the Circuit Court of Davidson County for disposition. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Daniel et al. v. Rick's Barbeque, Inc. et al.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Appellees, finding that Appellant’s own inattention was the cause of her accident and that she was more than 50% at fault for her injuries. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
James Whitfield Livingston v. Lauren Elizabeth Logue
After an extended trial, the court adopted a permanent parenting plan for the child of unwed parents and determined the father’s child support obligation. Mother takes issue with both decisions. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kylee T.
Inthis case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child, the Shelby County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that one statutory ground for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Torres v. YMCA Foundation of Middle Tennessee
The appeal concerns the scope and enforceability of a liability waiver. The trial court determined the liability waiver applied to the plaintiff’s claims of personal injury and granted the defendant summary judgment. We agree and affirm |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Eddrick Booker v. Tennessee Board of Parole
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a defective petition for writ of certiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the Appellee’s motion to dismiss after Appellant failed to verify and notarize the petition under the requirements set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Gracelyn H.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ellie C.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s modification of a residential schedule in which the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Camille Webb Steward v. Orson Eric Steward
This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02. Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B§ 1.01, the appeal is dismissed. |
Court of Appeals | ||
ROSE CHRISTIAN V. JEFFERSON CITY, ET AL.
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action concerning the rezoning of property |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals |
