Marla Dean Evans v. Johnny Howard Evans
Counsel for plaintiff in damage suit appeals award of sanctions imposed pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11 against her. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion the award is affirmed. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
George Campbell, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary conviction. The respondents did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and a certified copy of the record of the disciplinary proceedings was filed with the trial court. The respondents filed a motion for judgment on the record. After review of the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the trial court granted the respondents' motion for judgment on the record. The petitioner inmate appeals. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
English Mountain Retreat, LLC, et al vs. Susanne Crusenberry-Gregg, et al
Plaintiffs purchased property insurance from defendants. The insured building was destroyed by a fire and plaintiffs received the full coverage limit. Nonetheless, plaintiffs sued defendants claiming that the building was under-insured and that they relied on the defendants' negligent advice. A jury trial occurred and after the close of plaintiffs' proof, defendants moved for a directed verdict on all issues. The trial court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs appeal. We find that a directed verdict is inappropriate because plaintiffs presented sufficient facts for a jury to decide liability. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for a full trial. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Roy L. Crawford v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal concerns a post-judgment motion. The petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the respondent department of correction. The petitioner inmate filed a complaint for declaratory judgment regarding the department of correction's denial of his request for a parole hearing. The department answered the complaint, and no action was taken on the case by either party in the two years that followed. The trial court entered a case management order, requiring the petitioner inmate to set a date for a final hearing within a given time. After the petitioner inmate failed to do so, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint without prejudice. Nearly a year later, the petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was filed after the order of dismissal became final. The petitioner appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Herman, et al. v. Jerry Hutchins, Jr., et al.
The defendants have appealed from a judgment declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of certain real property and awarding the plaintiffs a judgment for the negligent cutting of timber. Because the defendants did not file their notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Herman, et al. v. Jerry Hutchins, Jr., et al.
The defendants have appealed from a judgment declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of certain real property and awarding the plaintiffs a judgment for the negligent cutting of timber. Because the defendants did not file their notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Robin R. Rippy and Darrell Rippy v. Cintas Corporation Services, Inc., et al
Plaintiff motorist filed suit against defendant motorist and her employer, seeking damages she sustained in a motor vehicle accident in which defendant motorist rear-ended her vehicle. Defendants appeal a jury award asserting there is no material evidence to support the award. Finding the verdict of the jury to be supported by the evidence, we affirm the judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Austin H., et al.
Mother's parental rights to her three children were terminated. We affirm, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother did not meet the reasonable requirements of the parenting plans and that persistent conditions existed. We further find that DCS used reasonable efforts to reunite the family. Finally, we find that termination of Mother's parental rights is in the best interest of the children. |
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Century Fire Protection, LLC., vs. Fowlers' Holdings, LLLP., et al
Plaintiff alleged that it delivered materials and provided labor for the installation of a fire protection system on the property of defendant and defendant had failed to pay money still owed under the contract. Plaintiff sought a materialmen's lien to enforce any judgment obtained against defendant for the amount of monies owed under the contract. Defendants answered, filed a counter-complaint and raised multiple defenses. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and ruled in plaintiff's favor, holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover monetary damages and the materialmen's lien would be enforced. Defendants have appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Cecilia Owensby, et al vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al
Cecilia and Charles Owensby had a homeowners insurance policy issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"). After their house burned down, the Owensbys filed a claim pursuant to the policy. State Farm eventually denied the claim, asserting that Cecilia Owensby had made four material misrepresentations when applying for the insurance and that each of these misrepresentations increased State Farm's risk of loss. The plaintiffs asserted that any inaccurate information contained on the application was the fault of the insurance agent who filled out the application on Cecilia Owensby's behalf. The plaintiffs sued both State Farm and Darius Miller ("Miller"), the insurance agent. State Farm and Miller filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. The plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment. We modify the judgment of the Trial Court and, as modified, affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
David Mathews, et al vs. The City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, et al
David Mathews and Tommy Baker ("Plaintiffs") sued the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, and EPB Telecom ("Defendants") for inverse condemnation. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. After a 1 hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendants summary judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the claim for inverse condemnation was barred by the statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 29-16-124. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We hold that the claim for inverse condemnation fails because no taking occurred, and summary judgment was properly granted to Defendants. The judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Clear Channel Outdoors, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
The issues on appeal pertain to a nonconforming, grandfathered billboard that was destroyed by a natural disaster in 1998. The original billboard, which was erected prior to the enactment of the Billboard Regulation and Control Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 54-21-101, et seq., was allowed to remain as a nonconforming, grandfathered device. After the nonconforming billboard was destroyed by a natural disaster, TDOT authorized Appellants to rebuild the billboard provided that it was rebuilt to the original size "using like materials" pursuant to Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1680-2-3-.04(2) (1998). The original billboard stood on two wooden posts and had a metal facing. When Appellants rebuilt the billboard by erecting it on a steel monopole instead of two wooden poles, TDOT filed a Notice of Charges stating the new billboard failed to comply with the regulation because it was not rebuilt with "like materials." Following a hearing, the administrative judge concluded that the billboard was in violation of the regulation, which decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of TDOT and the chancery court. Appellants contend on appeal that the billboard is in compliance with the regulation and that the removal of the billboard constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. We affirm the finding that the billboard was not in compliance with the regulation as it was not rebuilt using "like materials." |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Victor J. Thomas, M.D., et al vs. Pediatrix Medical Group of Tennessee, P.C.
In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs asked the trial court to declare null and void certain restrictive covenants in their employment contracts with defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss the action and enforce the arbitration agreement contained in the employment contract between the parties. The trial court refused to order arbitration and ruled that in the interest of judicial economy, the Court should decide the issues raised in the declaratory judgment action. On appeal, we reverse the trial court's refusal to order arbitration and remand, directing the Court to stay the proceeding and order the parties to arbitrate the issues arising from the contracts of employment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Myrna Wheelock, et al vs. Jesse Thomas Doers, M.D., et al
In this appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Myrna Wheelock, et al vs. Jesse Thomas Doers, M.D., et al
In this appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Edward Rich, M.D. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners
This is an administrative appeal arising from the suspension of a doctor's medical license by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The appellant's medical license was suspended by the Board following its finding that he violated four provisions of the Tennessee Medical Practice Act, three state regulations, and one provision of the United States Code. The violations related to his use of chelation therapy and intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy, and his use of methadone to treat patients. Following the Board's decision, the appellant filed a petition for judicial review before the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the Board. The appellant raises numerous issues on appeal, inter alia, that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. We reverse the finding that Dr. Rich was in violation of subsections (1), (4) and (12) of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-214(b) because the Board did not articulate the applicable standard of care, as required by Tenn. Code Ann._ 63-6-214(g), to demonstrate his violations of that standard. We affirm the chancery court on all other issues including the findings that Dr. Rich violated of subsection (14) of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 63-6-214(b), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(c), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs._ 0880-2-.14(6)(e)(3)(ii) and 21 U.S.C.A _ 823(g)(1). Due to our reversal of the Board's finding on three of the seven charges against Dr. Rich, we remand this action for the reconsideration of the sanctions against him. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Zachary M. Hughes v. Premier Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, PLC, et al.
The plaintiff has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his medical malpractice action. Because the plaintiff did not file a timely notice of appeal from the order of dismissal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Glynda Shealy vs. Chuong C. Williams, et al
This appeal involves a dispute between adjacent landowners over boundary lines with respect to a fence and ownership of property constituting a substantial portion of a concrete driveway to one neighbor's house. Glynda Shealy ("Plaintiff") sued Chuong C. Williams and Nickie Ann Dunker ("Defendants") for trespass and malicious encroachment, claiming that Defendants' concrete driveway and backyard fence encroached upon Plaintiff's adjoining properties. In response, both Defendants asserted a defense of adverse possession. Upon conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found, inter alia, that the concrete driveway intruded on Plaintiff's property but that Defendant Dunker had a prescriptive easement in a gravel driveway for ingress and egress. Additionally, the trial court ordered Defendant Dunker to remove her backyard fence to the legally established boundary lines and awarded Plaintiff $50 in nominal damages. After the trial court dismissed Defendant Williams from this lawsuit, Defendant Dunker filed a motion to amend her answer to add a defensive claim of easement by prescription. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brandon T., et al
Parents appeal the trial court's termination of their parental rights. Because we find that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had made reasonable efforts to address the problems preventing the reunification of the children with their parents, we reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Steven Farmer
This appeal involves the registration of a foreign order. In 1991, the parents of a minor child were divorced in Texas, and the father was ordered to pay child support. Soon thereafter, the mother moved with the child to Kentucky and began receiving public assistance on behalf of the child. Because the mother was receiving public assistance, the father's child support obligation was assigned to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In 2006, the father moved to Tennessee. Thereafter, Kentucky registered the Texas child support order in Tennessee and sought to enforce it. The father contested the registration of the child support order. The trial court rejected the father's challenges and ordered that the child support order be registered for enforcement in Tennessee. The father now appeals. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Zachary G.G.
This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of Father/Appellant's petition to change the primary residential parent or in the alternative to increase his parenting time. Because Father did not demonstrate that a material change of circumstances has occurred, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Walker's, Inc. d/b/a Walker's Quality Cleaners v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, State of Tennessee
This appeal involves the Retailers' Sales Tax Act. The plaintiff taxpayer is a dry-cleaning business. The taxpayer did not pay Tennessee sales tax for the sale of dry-cleaning and laundering services to a formalwear rental business. After an audit, the Tennessee Department of Revenue concluded that the taxpayer's sales of these services did not qualify as "sales for resale" that were exempt from taxation under the Retailers' Sales Tax Act, and assessed unpaid sales taxes. The taxpayer filed this lawsuit challenging the assessment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the taxpayer's sales of dry-cleaning and laundering services qualified for the "sale for resale" exemption and abated the assessment. The Commissioner of the Department of Revenue appeals. We reverse, finding, inter alia, that the sales do not fall within the "sale for resale" exemption from taxation under the Retailers' Sales Tax Act because dry-cleaning and laundering garments does not amount to "processing" under the Act. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Southwest Tennessee Electric Membership Corporation, et al. v. City of Jackson, Tennessee, and the City of Jackson, Tennessee City Council
This is an annexation case. The defendant city decided to annex twelve square miles of land to its northwest. The territory to be annexed was divided into forty-nine subareas. Some of the subareas immediately adjoin the city's existing boundary; all are contiguous to one another. The city prepared a plan to provide services for each of the subareas. The plans of service stated that, upon annexation, the city would deliver services immediately with existing resources. The city simultaneously enacted forty-nine ordinances annexing each of the subareas. Afterward, the plaintiff residents filed the instant quo warranto lawsuit challenging the annexation, arguing inter alia that the city could not annex land that did not adjoin its existing boundary and that the plans of service were fatally deficient under the annexation statutes. After a trial, the lower court concluded that the city could annex all of the subareas and had complied with the statutory requirements for annexation. The residents appeal. We reverse the trial court's decision that the city could annex the subareas that did not immediately adjoin the city's existing boundary, affirm the decision that the city complied with the statutory requirements for annexation with respect to the remaining subareas, and remand for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Duffer, as Executrix of the Estate of Elmer Hamilton Lawson v. Mary Lawson
This appeal concerns the ownership of real property. The decedent acquired the subject property while he was married to the defendant surviving spouse. Years later, the decedent quitclaimed his interest in the property to his grandson. Subsequently, the decedent and the grandson disputed ownership of the property and an ancillary lawsuit ensued. Before the litigation was resolved, the decedent died and his estate was substituted as a party. The surviving spouse filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the grandson, asserting he caused the decedent's death. The grandson settled both lawsuits; the settlement of each involved a transfer of the subject real property. Thereafter, the executrix of the decedent's estate filed the instant lawsuit against the surviving spouse seeking a determination as to the ownership of the property. The surviving spouse counterclaimed, asserting various theories of ownership. On the estate's motion, the trial court entered an order dismissing the surviving spouse's counterclaim to the extent that it sought fee simple ownership. The surviving spouse now appeals. We dismiss the appeal, finding that we do not have subject matter jurisdiction. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Bill Travis, et al. v. Trustees of Lakewood Park v. Coffee County, Tennessee
This appeal concerns sovereign immunity. A subdivision in the defendant county had restrictive covenants that, inter alia, required the payment of an annual assessment by all lot owners to the subdivision trustees. In the wake of delinquent taxes, pursuant to statutes, the county took title to lots in the subdivision after delinquent tax sales failed to yield sufficient bids. The county held the lots for several years, and declined to pay the trustees the annual assessments on the properties. Residents of the subdivision sued the trustees, and crossclaims against the county were asserted for the past-due assessments. The county contended that it was immune from liability for the lot assessments under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. After a trial, the trial court held that the county was entitled to sovereign immunity insofar as it had complied with the pertinent statutes on delinquent tax sales, and granted a partial judgment against the county on the assessment claims. The trustees appeal, arguing that the county was not entitled to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to the contract claims under the restrictive covenants. We agree, and affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals |
