COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Dana Monique Smith v. John Newton Ford
W2005-00564-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harold W. Horne

The trial court awarded Petitioner child support for one child in accordance with the child support guidelines. Respondent appeals, asserting the trial court erred by failing to deviate from the child support guidelines. We affirm.

Teresa A. Carpenter v. Timothy P. Klepper, et al.
M2004-02951-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ross H. Hicks

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against doctor and his employer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed the admission into evidence of expert testimony offered by two physicians under the locality rule and the award of certain discretionary costs. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

State of Tennessee, ex rel. Gwender L. Taylor v. Ian W. Taylor, Sr.
W2004-02589-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kenneth A. Turner

This action stems from a petition for child support and a subsequent petition to modify child support.  In this appeal, the appellant has presented numerous issues for review. However, this Court finds one issue dispositive of the case: whether the trial court complied with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58 when it entered its order establishing child support and its subsequent order modifying child support. We dismiss this appeal and remand for entry of both orders pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

In the Matter of: N.T.B.
E2005-1246-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“the State”) filed a Petition for Temporary Custody of N.T.B. (“the Child”) in July of 2002, alleging, among other things, that the Child was abused and/or dependent and neglected. The Juvenile Court held that the Child was a dependent and neglected child within the meaning of the law and awarded temporary custody of the Child to the State. Reba Johnson (“Mother”) and Michael Blevins (“Father”) appealed the Juvenile Court order to the Circuit Court (“Trial Court”), and the case was tried. After trial, the Trial Court found and held, inter alia, that the Child was a dependent and neglected child within the meaning of the law and that the Child had suffered severe abuse pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102(b)(21)(A) while in the care of his parents. Mother and Father appeal. We affirm.

Tavares Ford, On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Toys R Us, Inc.
W2005-01117-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the circuit court erred when it dismissed the appellant’s class action suit based on lack of standing and primary jurisdiction. On appeal, the appellant asserts that she had standing to bring her suit and that the circuit court should not have declined to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. We affirm.

Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government, et al.
M2004-01071-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

The trial court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by sending notice to a mortgagee of an impending tax sale of the mortgaged property by regular mail. We reverse.

Louis J. Federico v. Aladdin Industries, LLC.
M2004-01693-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Richard H. Dinkins

This appeal arises from the second civil action between these parties. In both civil actions, Mr. Federico brought suit against Aladdin Industries for breach of a written employment agreement. In the first action, Federico only sought recovery of a bonus. In this second action Federico seeks to recover the value of a so-called “phantom unit” equity plan provided for in the employment agreement. Both claims were based on the same employment agreement. Aladdin filed a motion for summary judgment contending res judicata barred this second action. The trial court granted Aladdin’s motion, and we affirm.

Ruby Pope v. Ervin Blaylock, et al.
W2004-02981-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

This is a premises liability case arising from Plaintiff/Guests’ fall over a landscaping wall while walking down Defendants/Homeowners’ walkway after dark. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants/Homeowners. Finding that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the lighting conditions created a dangerous condition on the Defendants/Homeowners’ property, and that McIntyre requires a comparison of the respective negligence of the parties, we reverse and remand.

David Manis, et ux., v. Kenneth Gibson, et ux.
E2005-00007-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.

In an action for damages caused by flooding, the Trial Court invoked comparative fault, awarded damages, and ordered defendants to correct conditions which caused the flooding. Both parties appealed. We affirm.

Mark Cowan v. Kim Hatmaker - Concurring
E2005-01433-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William E. Lantrip

I agree with the results reached by the trial court – including the award of attorney’s fees – as affirmed by the majority opinion. I write separately to express my disagreement with the appellant’s belief and the majority’s belief that the trial court did not find a change in circumstances warranting a change in the custodial arrangement. I recognize that the trial court did not find a change in circumstances warranting a change in the identity of the primary residential parent. However, I believe the trial court did find that the circumstances regarding the child’s custodial arrangement had changed so as to “affect[] the child’s well-being in a meaningful way,” Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tenn. 2002); and that it then proceeded to (1) modify the existing parenting plan by transferring decision-making authority regarding the educational/extracurricular activities of the child from the father to the mother and (2) grant the mother the right to obtain a second opinion as to medical matters.

Mark Cowan v. Kim Hatmaker, In Re: BC, D.O.B 4/15/93, Minor Child Under Eighteen (18) years of age
E2005-01433-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William E. Lantrip

The father filed a Petition to Change Custody of child from the mother to the father, alleging change of circumstances. Following trial, the Trial Court refused to order a change of custody, but modified the Parenting Plan. On appeal, we affirm.

Charles H. Weeks, et al. v. Ray Scott, et al.
W2005-00584-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Dewey C. Whitenton

The chancery court awarded Plaintiffs Weeks damages for the taking of trees by the City of Eastview. Eastview appeals, and we vacate the award of damages against Eastview for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On cross-appeal, Weeks assert the trial court erred in failing to assess damages against Defendant Ingram and in determining Weeks had impliedly dedicated a roadway known as Autumn Lane as a public roadway. We modify and affirm on these issues.

John Allen Construction, LLC v. Jerome Hancock, Sandra Hancock, and Carroll Bank and Trust
W2004-02920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This is a construction case. The defendant homeowners entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff contractor to construct a house for the defendants. After the contractor had substantially completed construction of the house, the homeowners discharged the contractor. The contractor then filed suit for unpaid costs and fees. The defendant homeowners counter-sued, alleging breach of the original contract. After a trial, the trial court entered a final order granting a monetary award to the contractor for his unpaid fees, minus several credits awarded to the defendant homeowners. The record does not include any factual findings or legal conclusions detailing the basis for the award.  The defendant homeowners appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert witness and in its calculation of the award to the contractor. We affirm the trial court’s admission of the expert testimony, but vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court for factual findings and legal conclusions in order to resolve the remaining issues on appeal.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Fred Thomas McKee et al.
M2005-00823-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. David Smith et al.
M2005-00799-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. William Sherron et al.
M2005-00800-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Linda Scott Webster
M2005-00818-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Nikki Wallace et al.
M2005-00819-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Berton Gregory et al.
M2005-00820-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Fred P. Walter et al.
M2005-00822-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Calvin Kirkham et al.
M2005-00795-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Patricia G. Green
M2005-00796-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Frank A. Bass et al.
M2005-00801-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Denver L. Pryor
M2005-00803-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Lorrie Marcum
M2005-00804-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. L. Rogers

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.