Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue Et Al.
Citizens of Tennessee may apply to the Tennessee Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for license plates featuring unique, personalized messages. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-210(d)(2) provides that “[t]he commissioner shall refuse to issue any combination of letters, numbers or positions that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that are misleading.” After her personalized plate featuring the message “69PWNDU” was revoked by the Department, Leah Gilliam (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against David Gerregano (the “Commissioner”), commissioner of the Department, as well as the then-Attorney General and Reporter. Plaintiff alleged various constitutional violations including violations of her First Amendment right to Free Speech. The Department and the State of Tennessee (together, the “State”) responded, asserting, inter alia, that the First Amendment does not apply to personalized plate configurations because they are government speech. The lower court, a special three judge panel sitting in Davidson County, agreed with the State. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse, holding that the personalized alphanumeric configurations on vanity license plates are private, not government, speech. We affirm, however, the panel’s decision not to assess discovery sanctions against the State. Plaintiff’s other constitutional claims are pretermitted and must be evaluated on remand because the panel did not consider any issues other than government speech. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Duane Dominy Et Al. v. Davidson County Election Commission
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Davidson County Election Commission, asserting that the Election Commission violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and Metro Code 2.68.020. The chancery court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Election Commission, concluding no violation occurred and that even if there had been a violation it was cured by a subsequent public meeting. Plaintiffs appealed. Defending the chancery court’s judgment, the Election Commission argues that the trial court’s ruling was correct on the merits and that the Plaintiffs are also not entitled to relief because they lack standing and because the matter has become moot. Because the Election Commission presented a well-developed and well-supported argument in favor of mootness and because the Plaintiffs have failed to respond to that argument, we conclude that opposition to the Election Commission’s mootness argument has been waived. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Noah B. Et Al.
A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Aaron Solomon v. Angelia Solomon et al.
Plaintiff sued several defendants over social media posts and the unauthorized use of his and his child’s name, image, and likeness. Plaintiff requested both damages and injunctive relief. In response, defendants petitioned to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Plaintiff then filed notice of a voluntary nonsuit, which defendants opposed. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. Because we conclude that nothing in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 precludes the voluntary dismissal, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Kristopher McMickens v. Vincent J. Perryman, as Administrator of the Estate of Alfred G. Farmer
The plaintiff filed this personal injury action following an automobile accident in which |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Wanda Denise Ware v. Metro Water Services, a Division/Agency of Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee
Plaintiff sued for personal injuries under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, alleging she had experienced a fall due to an unsecure water meter valve cover located in her sister’s yard. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order finding that Plaintiff had not met her burden of proof. Although Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her case, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Youree, Jr. v. Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC Et Al.
A landlord leased property to company A. When company A breached the lease, the landlord filed suit against the company to recover monetary damages. A default judgment was entered against company A and, when company A failed to make any payments on that judgment, the landlord filed suit against company B and company C. The landlord alleged that the corporate veil should be pierced to hold company B and company C liable for company A’s debt because they were the alter egos of company A. After a default judgment was entered against company B and company C, they motioned to have the judgment set aside because the landlord’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The trial court denied the motion to set aside, and the two companies appealed. Discerning that the complaint does not state sufficient factual allegations to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil, we reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Katherine J. Hill v. James D. Hill
This appeal stems from a lengthy and acrimonious divorce, wherein the trial court, inter |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
City of Benton v. Glenn Austin Whiting
Defendant/Appellant appealed a speeding ticket from Benton City Municipal Court to the Circuit Court for Polk County, Tennessee (the “circuit court”). The City of Benton (the “City”) filed a motion for summary judgment which the circuit court granted on May 18, 2022. Defendant appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley Allen Garrett v. William Tyler Weiss, Et Al.
The pro se plaintiff appeals the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of his legal |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Emaire E.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellants, Mother and stepfather, filed a |
Court of Appeals | ||
Christopher George Pratt v. Tiffani Hearn Pratt, et al.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a provision in a marital dissolution agreement obligating the father to pay for his son’s “college tuition, expenses, room and board.” The mother filed a petition for contempt and for breach of contract, seeking a judgment for over $15,000 in expenses that the father refused to pay, as he believed that they were not covered by the language of the MDA. The father filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration of his obligations. He asked the trial court to interpret the language of the MDA and also declare that he had fulfilled his obligations under the MDA in light of his son’s struggles in college thus far. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a series of orders interpreting the language of the MDA and defining the categories of expenses that the father was obligated to pay. However, none of the trial court’s orders mention or resolve his request for termination of his obligation. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s orders and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding this issue pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Karl S. Jackson v. City of Memphis, et al.
This appeal arises from an employment termination case in which an employee of the Division of Fire Services for the City of Memphis was terminated for a second positive drug test. After receiving notice of his termination, the employee requested an appeal hearing with the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. Following the hearing, the Civil Service Commission issued a decision affirming the termination of his employment. The employee filed a petition for the trial court to review the decision of the Civil Service Commission. The trial court found that substantial and material evidence did not support the decision and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the trial court granted the employee’s petition and remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission. The City of Memphis appeals. We vacate the decision of the trial court and remand to the trial court for entry of an order to remand to the Civil Service Commission with instructions to issue a decision addressing certain deficiencies. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mitchell B.
In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support. Father also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Araceli Cordova et al. v. Robert J. Martin
This is an action for malicious prosecution of an attorney’s fee claim. The plaintiffs contend |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher L. Wiesmueller v. Corrine Oliver Et Al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to § 2.02 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, pursuant to the de novo standard as required under Rule 10B, § 2.01, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Robert McKeel Bone
At issue is the validity of an amendment to a revocable trust. The specific issue is whether the Settlor’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to execute an amendment to the Robert McKeel Bone Living Trust. The trial court held that the amendment was valid. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
Frances P. Owens v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center
A patient brought a health care liability action against a hospital after she developed a pressure wound during her hospital stay. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the ground that the patient’s standard of care expert was not competent to testify under the Health Care Liability Act. Alternatively, it sought to narrow the remaining claims through a partial summary judgment. The trial court disqualified the expert witness and granted the hospital summary judgment on all claims. The court’s decision was based, in part, on grounds not raised in the hospital’s motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the expert was competent to testify and the trial court erred in ruling on additional grounds not raised by the movant, we vacate the judgment in part. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wheelhouse Partners, LLC v. Wilson & Associates, PLLC Et Al.
This case stems from an unpaid promissory note secured by real property that was sold in foreclosure. Wheelhouse Partners, LLC (“Wheelhouse”), the beneficiary under a second deed of trust on the subject property, sued Wilson & Associates, PLLC (“Wilson”), the substitute trustee under the first deed of trust on the subject property, and James G. Akers and Deborah L. Akers (the “property owners” or, together with Wilson, “Defendants”). Wheelhouse alleged that the foreclosure sale produced excess funds sufficient to satisfy its second deed of trust and promissory note after satisfying the first deed of trust, but that Defendants refused to deliver such funds to Wheelhouse. Wheelhouse also alleged breach of contract against the property owners. Wilson interpleaded the surplus funds into the court and, following a successful motion for summary judgment, Wheelhouse was awarded the balance of its promissory note as well as its attorney’s fees. Mr. Akers appeals. Because his appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, his issues are waived and the lower court’s judgment is affirmed. Because Wheelhouse’s deed of trust clearly provides for an award of attorney’s fees and Wheelhouse properly requested its appellate attorney’s fees, we award Wheelhouse said fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Abraham S.
Keith S. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, Abraham S. (“the Child”). The Juvenile Court for Davidson County (“the juvenile court”) terminated Father’s parental rights based on several statutory grounds: abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support; abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; persistent conditions; and failure to manifest an ability to assume legal and physical custody. The juvenile court concluded that one alleged ground for termination, substantial noncompliance with permanency plan, was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Following our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s ruling as to all but one ground for termination. Because the record contains scant evidence of help offered to Father regarding housing, we conclude that abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling as to the other statutory grounds, and we affirm the ruling that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interests. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Annie J. Jones, by and through her conservatorship, Joyce Sons a/k/a Calisa Joyce Sons v. Life Care Centers of America d/b/a Life Care Center of Tullahoma
This appeal arises from an incident in which the nude body of a resident at an assisted living facility was exposed on a video call via telephone when an employee of the healthcare facility engaged in a personal call while assisting the resident in the shower. The resident, by and through her conservator/daughter (“Plaintiff”), sued the owner and operator of the healthcare facility, Life Care Centers of America d/b/a Life Care Center of Tullahoma (“Defendant”), asserting a claim of “Negligence Pursuant to the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act” and a generalized claim for invasion of privacy with allegations of “Gross Negligence, Willful, Wanton, Reckless, Malicious and/or Intentional Misconduct.” Relying on the undisputed fact that the resident was unaware and never informed that the incident occurred, Defendant moved for summary judgment due to the lack of a cognizable injury or recoverable damages. Plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that actual damages were not an essential element of her claims and, in the alternative, moved to amend the complaint to specifically assert a claim for invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon the resident’s seclusion and a claim for negligent supervision. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint on the ground “that damages for invasion of privacy . . . cannot be proven as it would be impossible to suffer from personal humiliation, mental anguish or similar damages since [the resident] is unaware that the incident happened” and denied the motion to amend the complaint on the basis of futility. Plaintiff appealed. We have determined that the gravamen of the complaint states a claim for invasion of privacy based upon the distinct tort of intrusion upon seclusion. We have also determined that actual damages are not an essential element of a claim for invasion of privacy based on the distinct tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Thus, Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. Moreover, granting leave to amend the complaint would not have been futile. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to summarily dismiss the complaint, reverse the decision to deny the motion to amend the complaint, and remand with instruction to reinstate the complaint, grant the motion to amend the complaint, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Clifton W. Wright, Jr. v. Joseph K. Reid, II Et Al.
This case arises from the demise of a short-lived business venture. For three years, two of |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Riley B. Et Al.
A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Chayson D.
Mother was not present when the trial court found that four grounds for termination were |
Court of Appeals | ||
Carlton B. Parks v. Adam U. Holland
This case arose from a legal malpractice action filed against a lawyer who had represented |
Court of Appeals |
