Elmer Elliott, Jr., v. Pearl Elliott, et al.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's award of summary judgment to Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for the failure to appeal a final judgment. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Randall C. Trent vs. Wayne Anderson, et al
Randall C. Trent ("Plaintiff") was incarcerated at the Sullivan County jail for several months before being transferred to the Tennessee Department of Correction. Plaintiff claims that while incarcerated at the Sullivan County jail, he was denied proper medical care and retaliated against for complaining about the lack of proper medical care. Plaintiff initially brought numerous claims against various defendants. This appeal involves the dismissal of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. _ 1983, 42 U.S.C. _ 1985, and 42 U.S.C._ 12101, also known as the Americans with Disabilities Act. These various federal claims were dismissed by the trial court after finding that the applicable one-year statute of limitations had expired by the time the complaint was filed. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the "continuing violation" doctrine applies to save his untimely claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Vicki Brown v. Antione Batey
This is an appeal of a criminal contempt hearing in which the appellant father was found to be in contempt for non-payment of child support pursuant to court order. Upon review of the record, we vacate. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerome Degans v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
This appeal involves an inmate's efforts to obtain judicial review of a prison disciplinary board decision. After the trial court determined that the inmate's petition for writ of certiorari was time barred by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 27-9-102 (2000), the inmate filed both a notice of appeal and a letter requesting "another chance." Because the trial court ordered the letter sent to the appellee for a response but has not yet ruled on the relief sought in the letter, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State, ex rel., Yvette Martin v. Lakisha Lynch
The mother of a minor child appeals her conviction of eighteen counts of criminal contempt for willful failure to pay child support. She contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for criminal contempt. We agree and reverse the finding of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Bernard Shute, Jr., et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee, et al.
The Nashville Metropolitan Council approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a large residential subdivision to be constructed by Habitat for Humanity. The Metropolitan Planning Commission subsequently approved a site plan for the first phase of the subdivision, over the objections of neighboring landowners, who then challenged the approval by filing a petition for writ certiorari in the Chancery Court. The petitioners also mounted a challenge against the entire project based on the ground that the PUD had become"inactive" because construction had not yet begun, even though six years had passed since it was initially approved. The Planning Commission rejected the challenge, finding that the project was still "active" and, therefore, that the PUD did not have to go through the process of approval for a second time. The neighbors then filed a second petition for writ of certiorari. The trial court consolidated the two petitions and heard arguments that the procedures the Planning Commission followed in reaching its decisions violated the petitioners' constitutional rights. The court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the Planning Commission had not acted illegally, arbitrarily or fraudulently, and that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Randall S. Patton, et al vs. Larry Massey
Lessor and Lessee entered into a lease with an option to purchase. Lessee subsequently assigned his interest in the Lease to a third party, who lived on the property throughout the Lease's primary term. The option to purchase the property was never completed and Lessee's assignee remained on the property after the expiration of the lease. Lessor filed a suit alleging breach of contract and sought damages from Lessee. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the lease was renewed by oral agreement; Lessee breached the contractual obligations of the lease; and Lessee was liable for damages. Lessee appeals. We affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
P & N Development, A Partnership, et al vs. Betty B. Church
Lessee sued Lessor for specific performance and damages, alleging breach of contract after Lessor did not permit Lessee to exercise the option to purchase the property. Lessor moved to dismiss, claiming that Lessee failed to properly and timely exercise the option to purchase the property. Lessor filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract and damages. After a bench trial, the trial court held that Lessee properly and timely exercised the option to purchase the property. Lessor appeals. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude Lessee did not exercise the option to purchase the property before the expiration of the Lease. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Joseph A.
This proceeding began in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court when the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") filed a petition seeking to have Joseph A. (the "Child") declared dependent and neglected based on allegations of abuse committed by Douglas A. ("Father"). Katheryn B. ("Mother") was allowed to intervene. A guardian ad litem was appointed on the Child's behalf. The Juvenile Court found the Child to be dependent and neglected, and Father appealed that finding to the circuit court. While this case was pending in the circuit court, DCS voluntarily dismissed the original petition. Thereafter, the guardian ad litem filed a motion seeking payment of attorney fees and costs. The circuit court granted this motion and entered a judgment against DCS for the guardian ad litem's fees and expenses. DCS appeals. We vacate the order taxing the guardian ad litem fees and costs against DCS and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Alvin Seagroves v. State of Tennessee and Tennessee Board of Probation & Parole
This appeal involves a prisoner who has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the wrong court for the second time. The instant petition was filed in the Davidson County Circuit Court, which dismissed the petition upon concluding that it should have been filed in Davidson County Chancery Court. The prisoner appeals, contending that the Circuit Court should have exercised jurisdiction over the petition or transferred it to the proper court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Reda Jo Mills v. Matthew Scott Mills
This is a divorce case. Wife appeals from the trial court's decision denying her alimony in futuro and attorney's fees. After reviewing the record, we discern no error and affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Coleman et al. v. St. Thomas Hospital
Plaintiffs filed suit against their employer, alleging common law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their exposure to carbon monoxide in the workplace. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs' tort claims were barred by Tennessee's workers' compensation law. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs' injuries did not "arise out of" their employment. The employer's application for an extraordinary appeal was granted. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting summary judgment to the employer. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of: Arteria H.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Both Mother and Father appeal the trial court's decision to terminate their parental rights. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Noel Montepeque, et al vs. Patricia Claire Adevai, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Adevai
The parties own adjoining properties with a common party wall. The building belonging to Noel Montepeque and Celia M. Martinez (collectively "Party A") is one story, whereas the building of Joseph Adevai ("Party B") is two stories and overlooks Party A's roof. The party wall contains four windows on the second level of Party B's building. The bottom sills of two of these windows are below the roof line, thus creating open spaces between the party wall and Party A's roof. While Party A was in the process of having a new rubberized roof installed by a contractor, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the manner in which the new roof would be secured to the party wall. Actions allegedly taken by Mr. Adevai to remove the flashing covering the party wall windows eventually resulted in water damage to the existing roof and interior portions of Party A's building. Party A sued Mr. Adevai for compensatory damages and requested that Mr. Adevai be enjoined from committing further damage to the party wall. Mr. Adevai filed a counterclaim, alleging harassment and intimidation by Party A. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the counterclaim and awarded Party A damages for negligence, totaling $28,350.00. We affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Dave Brundage, et al vs. Cumberland County, et al
Petitioners filed a Statutory Writ of Certiorari, seeking the review of respondents' action in granting the right to develop a landfill to Smith Mountain Solutions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _68-211-704. Petitioners did not timely verify their petitions and the Trial Judge dismissed the action on the ground he did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On appeal, we affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Wyatt v. Ronald Byrd
Property was purchased in Mr. Byrd's name alone, but Ms. Wyatt contends that partnership/joint venture profits were used to secure the purchase, such that she is entitled to an interest in the property. We find that, to the extent that partnership profits were used towards earnest money and closing costs, Ms. Wyatt is presumed to have an interest in the property. We vacate the trial court's dismissal order and we remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding whether R & J Remodeling profits were expended towards earnest money and closing costs, and to allow Mr. Byrd an opportunity to rebut the presumption of partnership property. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Jesse Robert Anderson v. Chris (Anderson) Webster
The order that is the subject of this appeal purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment. It was entered in response to a motion filed more than a year after the entry of the final judgment. We have determined the motion was untimely because it did not qualify as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion; therefore, the order that purports to amend the division of marital property as stated in the final judgment is void. We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the order that purports to amend the final judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Conservatorship of Joyce D. Benny
This is an appeal in a conservatorship case. The notice of appeal was mailed via overnight delivery. Had the notice of appeal been delivered the next day, it would have been timely. Unfortunately, the notice of appeal was not delivered the next day and, therefore, was not timely filed. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty (30) days of entry of the final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this appeal must be dismissed. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Gayle Bernard and Edward Michael Shea v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee
This is the second appeal by two former police officers who sought retirement gifts provided for by Metro ordinance and police department policies. The officers requested the gifts and were denied based on lacking good standing at the time they retired, as required by the ordinance. The officers filed a declaratory judgment action as well as civil rights claims, which the trial court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim, respectively. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action and remanded. On remand, the trial court found that, because the officers were under investigation for misconduct at the time of their retirement, they were not in good standing as required by the ordinance and, thus, not entitled to the retirement gifts. The officers appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rennee N. Dhillon v. Gursheel S. Dhillon
Husband challenges various rulings of the trial court in this second appeal of the post-divorce proceedings. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Bee Deselm, et al vs. Knox County Commission, et al
Plaintiffs' action sought the removal of twelve Knox County office holders who had been appointed by the Knox County Commission in violation of the Open Meetings Act, according to plaintiffs' complaint. Another action, independent of plaintiffs' action, sought removal of the office holders on the grounds that the office holders had been appointed in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Plaintiffs were allowed to intervene in the independent case which, following trial, resulted in a finding that the Commission had violated the Open Meetings Act, and the office holders were removed from office. In this case, the trial court held that since plaintiffs had obtained the results that they sought in their action as a result of their intervention that the continuation of this action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs sought and were granted several amendments with their complaint seeking relief on other grounds, but the trial court denied any further relief to plaintiffs' bid. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Anderson v. Roy W. Hendrix, Jr.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff buyer of land, concluding that defendant seller was liable for rollback taxes pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 67-5-1008(f). We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ferrel C. Glover v. Celia Ann Clevenger Glover
After the parties' brief marriage, the trial court awarded Wife $25,000.00 for equity allegedly accrued in the marital residence during the marriage. Finding no contributions by Wife to support a transmutation from separate to marital property, we reverse. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Janis Oliver Cummins v. Roy B. Cummins
Husband appeals the trial court's decision that Wife's payment of taxes, insurance and association dues on houses titled jointly were contributions of separate property to the homes which, under a premarital agreement, entitled her to a credit before Husband could recover appreciation on those homes. The agreement provides for the treatment of a party's contributions of separate property to jointly held property, and we share the trial court's interpretation of those provisions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy L. Chapman et al vs. James V. Lewis, M.D., et al
On April 10, 2000, William D. Chapman, II ("the Deceased") was involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of his injuries, he was admitted to Holston Valley Hospital and Medical Center in Kingsport where he came under the care of trauma surgeons, the defendants, James V. Lewis, M.D., and George M. Testerman, Jr., M.D., as well as other physicians and medical personnel. The plaintiff, Cathy L. Chapman, brought this wrongful death action against the defendants based upon her allegation that they were guilty of medical malpractice in the treatment of her husband; she claims that their malpractice caused the death of the Deceased on April 15, 2000. Following eight days of a jury trial in July 2008, counsel for the parties made their closing arguments. During the defense's argument, counsel for the plaintiff objected when counsel for Dr. Testerman projected on a video screen what purported to be the Q. and A. trial testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Philip Witorsch. The trial court overruled the objection and thereafter the jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. Later, the trial court, acting on the plaintiff's motion, reversed itself and held that the defendants failed to lay a proper foundation for the use of the projected testimony. The court also pointed out that the defendants failed to give the plaintiff prior notice of their intention to use portions of the trial transcript in closing argument. As a consequence, the court granted the plaintiff a new trial. The defendants appeal. We reverse the trial court's grant of a new trial and reinstate the court's judgment in favor of the defendants. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals |
