Mark E. Hatley v. Ann E. Hatley
This is a divorce case following a long-term marriage. Wife appeals the trial court’s: 1) valuation and distribution of marital property and allocation of debt; 2) award of transitional alimony; 3) downward deviation of Husband’s child support obligation; and 4) denial of her request for her attorney’s fees to be paid from the marital estate. We affirm the trial court’s valuation of property; vacate the trial court’s division of marital debt, in part; vacate the alimony award; and reverse the court’s downward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Kinsinger, Jr.
In 2021, the Defendant, Richard Kinsinger, Jr., pleaded guilty to sexual battery by an authority figure, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve six months in confinement and five years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Madison B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. (“Father”) to their Child, Madison B. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison and Madison’s older sister, Kaylee B., in two separate petitions filed in the Sevier County Juvenile Court (“trial court”).1 The trial court conducted a joint hearing on both petitions and entered two separate orders terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child.2 The trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison after finding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon the ground of mental incompetence. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Madison’s best interest. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Kaylee B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Virginia Dodson-Stephens et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a mother, individually and on behalf of her daughter, against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the State of Tennessee after her daughter sustained paralyzing injuries while attending a public school. After a four-day bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants were negligent and that each was fifty percent at fault for the child’s injuries. The trial court found that the plaintiffs should be awarded total compensatory damages of $10,902,348.02, but it reduced the judgment to $600,000 ($300,000 against each defendant) in accordance with the applicable statutory caps. Metro has appealed, while the State has not. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Richard Douglas Roberson
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought to determine whether the defendant was an heir to the estate. The trial court determined that the defendant was not an heir and divided the estate accordingly amongst the legal heirs. We now affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Corey M.
This action involves the termination of a mother and father’s parental rights to their minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to each parent. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Shaun Christopher Bruce Et Al. v. Tennessee American Water Company
This is an appeal from the denial of two class action certifications. The trial court found |
Court of Appeals | ||
Ellen Marie Cali v. Robert George Cali
In this divorce case, Father/Appellant appeals the trial court’s: (1) allocation of parenting time; (2) inclusion of special provisions in the parenting plan; (3) finding that Father was willfully underemployed; (4) award of an upward deviation in Father’s child support obligation; (5) division of the marital estate; and (6) grant of Mother/Appellee’s petition for divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees is granted. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Chevy Chase G.I. Investors, L.C. v. AmSurg Holdings, Inc.
This is an action to enforce a 2020 arbitration award (the “Award”), which was confirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County in 2021. The subject of the arbitration was Chevy Chase ASC, LLC (“CCASC”), a two-member Tennessee limited liability company, which was formed and operated by Chevy Chase G.I. Investors, L.C. (“Plaintiff”), and AmSurg Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”). The Award stated, in pertinent part, that the voluntary dissolution of Plaintiff would “trigger the mandatory dissolution” of CCASC. Following Plaintiff’s voluntary dissolution, however, Defendant refused to dissolve or wind up the affairs of CCASC. Defendant contended that it had the statutory right under the “dissolution avoidance” provision of Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-245-101(b) to continue operating CCASC as a single-member limited liability company. Relying on the Award and the 2021 court order confirming the Award, Plaintiff commenced this action to compel Defendant to dissolve CCASC and wind up its business affairs. Finding the Award to be unambiguous, the Chancellor ordered “the immediate liquidation and dissolution of CCASC.” This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ZANIYAH C. ET AL.
A mother appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights to three minor children. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Kerry Davis, Surviving Husband of Sylvia Davis, Deceased v. Garrettson Ellis, MD
This is the second appeal in this healthcare liability matter. The plaintiff first appealed from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant physician. This court reversed that judgment in 2020. Upon remand, a trial before a jury resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff again appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christine Smith v. Dillard Tennessee Operating Limited Partnership ET AL
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case at the summary judgment stage on the basis that she had failed to establish an element of the cause of action. Like the trial court, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to show that the nolle prosequi resolution of the underlying criminal matter constituted a favorable termination. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Isaiah M.
The trial court denied Appellant’s seventh and eighth motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ISAIAH M.
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ISAIAH M.
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
GORDON GROVES v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE ET AL.
In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
GILBERT HEREDIA v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE ET AL.
In this action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs have appealed in companion appeals. 1 Upon our review, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remand for further proceedings. We deny the plaintiffs’ request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ISAIAH M.
In this termination of parental rights case, the trial court denied Appellant’s multiple motions to recuse. Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Brittney Emmel et al. v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. et al.
More than thirty days after denying a motion to compel arbitration, the trial court granted an application for permission to appeal the denial under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Because an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, we conclude the appeal was untimely. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE EASTON G. ET AL.
Because no final order has been entered in the underlying trial court proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC., ET AL. v. MICHAEL HUTTON
The appellees filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and an injunction, pursuant to the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-14-101, et seq. (“the TVWA”), against a former employee, the appellant. The appellees alleged, inter alia, that the appellant was committing unlawful violence at the workplace by stalking the corporation, the chief executive officer (“CEO”), and the employees. The alleged stalking consisted mostly of public Facebook posts by the appellant. The Chancery Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”) granted the appellees a temporary restraining order prior to the hearing on the injunction. After the hearing, the Trial Court found that the appellant had committed unlawful violence at the workplace via stalking based upon the appellant’s persistent Facebook posts about the appellees and granted the appellees an injunction against the appellant. The Trial Court also found the appellant in contempt for eleven violations of the temporary restraining order. The Trial Court awarded the appellees their attorney’s fees. This appeal ensued. Based upon our review, we reverse the Trial Court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Doerrian K., et al.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her five children. The juvenile court found three grounds for termination and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests based on clear and convincing evidence. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Malia Bryant v. Shelby County Government, et al.
This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board. The appellant worked as a cashier for the Shelby County Trustee’s Office and was terminated after she experienced a cash shortage and attempted to force balance. The Civil Service Merit Board conducted a review hearing and upheld the termination. The appellant sought judicial review in the chancery court, which likewise upheld the termination. The appellant filed this appeal claiming that her procedural due process rights were violated, her termination was not in accordance with the policies and procedures of Shelby County, and that the Civil Service Merit Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Kammers et al. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System et al.
A high school student suffered a serious injury when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye. The injured student sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System, asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable. The circuit court granted the School System’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the student’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals |
