Carl Ross v. Tennessee Department of Correction
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court erred in finding that the West Tennessee State Penitentiary Disciplinary Board acted within its jurisdiction and did not act illegally, arbitrarily or fraudulently and substantially complied with its policies and procedures in dismissing Appellant’s claims that: (1) the Board deviated from TDOC Policy No. 502.01(VI)(E)(4)(a) by failing to dismiss one of the charges against Appellant; (2) the Board deviated from TDOC Policy 502.01(VI)(E)(3)(c)(6) and (VI)(E)(3)(d)(1)-(4) by failing to call Officer Hankins; (3) the Board deviated from TDOC Policy 502.01(VI)(E)(3)(e) by failing to independently assess and verify the reliability of the confidential informant; (4) the Board deviated from TDOC policy 502.01(VI)(E)(3)(i)(1) by finding Appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance without any evidence; and (5) the Board deviated from TDOC Policy (VI)(E)(3)(k)(5) by failing to provide detailed reasons for its decisions and failing to summarize the evidence which led to the Board finding Appellant guilty. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Crespo, et al. v. Carol McCullough, et al. - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Karen Crespo, et al. v. Carol McCullough, et al.
Karen Crespo and Freddie Crespo filed this medical malpractice action in August 2007, alleging negligence preceding the birth of their daughter, Laura Crespo, in December 2001. The defendants – OB/GYN physician Carol McCullough, OB/GYN nurse Jerilyn H. Boles, Tennessee Women’s Care, P.C., and Women’s Health Alliance, P.C. – moved for dismissal, claiming the suit is barred by this state’s three-year statute of repose for medical malpractice claims, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a) (2000), as interpreted by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Calaway v. Schucker, 193 S.W.3d 509 (Tenn. 2005). The plaintiffs allege that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to their case. The State of Tennessee intervened to defend the statute’s constitutionality. The trial court dismissed the case, but stated in its order that “Plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments are important [and] worthy of review” and “would be best addressed by the appellate courts.” The plaintiffs appeal. We hold that Calaway’s interpretation of § 29-26-116(a) – extending the statute of repose to minors – effectively overturned a body of law that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied upon, and that the sudden reversal of those precedents, without any opportunity for the plaintiffs to pursue their vested claims, worked a violation of these plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.
Plaintiffs sued natural gas companies under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §47-25-101, et seq., alleging that the natural gas companies conspired unlawfully to increase the wholesale price of natural gas. The trial court granted the natural gas companies’ motion to dismiss on the basis of federal preemption. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Adoption of A.E., E.E., and E.E.
This case involves a parental termination proceeding where Father originally consented to termination of his parental rights, but now appeals on the ground that his surrender was procedurally deficient and made under duress. Father also alleges that the trial court erred when it failed to grant him leave to conduct discovery on opposing counsel and when the trial court failed to recuse itself. On appeal we find no error; the trial court properly granted Mother’s petition to terminate parental rights, Father failed to present any proof that he was under duress when he consented to the motion to terminate or that he was entitled to depose opposing counsel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for recusal. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction v. Jeffrey S. Conner, et al.
This litigation arises out of the renovation of and addition to a 100-year old house. While suit was pending, the plaintiff, Billy S. Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction (“Contractor”) failed to respond to interrogatories with respect to requested information regarding experts. He likewise did not respond to a motion to compel responses to the interrogatories and an order of the court compelling responses. As a consequence of Contractor’s inaction, the trial court refused to allow his two expert witnesses to testify. At trial, Contractor objected to the testimony of an expert tendered by the defendants, Jeffrey S. Conner and Tresia Conner (“Homeowners”). The trial court overruled the objection. Contractor argues in this court that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow his experts to testify and when it held that Homeowners’ expert was qualified to testify. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services v. V.N., et al.
The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights of V.N. (“Mother”), T.W., and any unknown father to the minor child K.B.N. (“the Child”). T.W. signed a Waiver of Interest and Notice waiving any rights he may have to the Child. After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence of grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Child under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3), and that it was in the best interest of the Child for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to this Court. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: D. F., S. F., T. F., L. F., A. F., A. F, D. F., K. F., Children Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age
This is a termination of parental rights case. The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her eight children based on persistence of conditions and upon finding that she is incompetent to adequately provide for their care and supervision. Father’s parental rights were terminated based on persistence of conditions. Both Mother and Father appeal. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Jacqueline Huls, et al. v. Jason N. Alford, et al.
This lawsuit was filed by Jacqueline and Jonathan Huls (“Petitioners”) seeking court-ordered visitation with their grandson pursuant to Tennessee’s Grandparent Visitation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306. The lawsuit was filed against Jason Alford (“Father”) and Leeanna Alford (“Mother”), the biological parents of Petitioners’ grandson. At trial, both parents testified that they had not and still did not oppose visitation between Petitioners and Petitioners’ grandson. Although comments made by the Trial Court support an implicit finding by the Trial Court that the parents did not oppose visitation, there was no express determination made on this particular issue. Following the trial, the Trial Court entered an order granting the petition and establishing a visitation schedule for Petitioners. We conclude that the testimony at trial preponderates in favor of a finding that the parents did not and do not oppose visitation. We further hold that in order for Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306 to be implicated, visitation by grandparents must be “opposed by the custodial parent or parents.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-306(a). Because we find that the parents do not oppose visitation, the statute is not implicated, and the Trial Court erred by not dismissing this case. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Trial Court, and this case is dismissed. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Teresa Garrison v. Larry L. Scobey
This is a child support case. The trial court determined Respondent Father had the ability to earn minimum wage and entered a temporary order of support ordering him to pay child support based upon a minimum wage income. Father filed a motion to set aside the order and failed to pay the ordered support. The State, acting ex rel. Mother, filed a petition for contempt, a petition for retroactive child support, and a petition to set permanent child support. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Father’s motion to set aside the temporary support order, affirmed the finding that Father was capable of earning minimum wage, and held Father in criminal contempt. The trial court also ordered Father to pay retroactive child support. The trial court stayed its order sentencing Father to jail for criminal contempt pending appeal to this Court. Father appeals the order finding him in contempt, the denial of his motion to set aside the temporary order of support, and the order of retroactive child support. We reverse the order on contempt and dismiss the remainder of Father’s appeal for failure to appeal a final judgment. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
James Gleaves v. Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
A former sheriff’s deputy appeals his termination. The Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board upheld the termination, and upon review, the chancery court found substantial and material evidence to support the decision. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James Robert Bell v. First Citizens National Bank, Trustee of the Mary Sue Bell, et al.
This appeal involves the sale of an asset of a testamentary trust. The plaintiff/appellant is a beneficiary of the trust, and the defendant/appellee bank is trustee of the trust. The trust originally had a promissory note as one of its assets. In 1981, the trust sold the note at a discount. In 1987, the bank submitted an accounting and sought approval for the sale of the note. The appellant’s father, also a beneficiary of the trust, challenged the bank’s petition. In 1989, the chancery court issued an order approving the sale of the promissory note. The order was signed by the appellant and was not appealed. In 2006, the appellant beneficiary filed a complaint in the trial court below, challenging the sale of the note. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, finding that the appellant’s claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that they were time-barred as well. In addition, the trial court awarded Rule 11 sanctions against the beneficiary. The beneficiary appeals. We affirm, finding that the beneficiary’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that Rule 11 sanctions are warranted. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Dwight Barbee, as Administrator of the Estate of Faye Glenn v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. et al.
This is a nursing home negligence case involving an arbitration agreement. The son of the decedent signed documents admitting his mother to the defendant nursing home. The admission documents included an arbitration agreement. After his mother’s death, the son filed a lawsuit on behalf of her estate against the defendant nursing home, alleging, inter alia, neglect and abuse. The nursing home filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and compel arbitration under the agreement. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the agreement was not unconscionable and that the son had apparent authority to sign the agreement in view of his mother’s incompetence and the exigent circumstances. The mother’s estate appeals. We find on appeal that the son was not his mother’s agent and did not have apparent authority to sign on her behalf. Applying the Tennessee Health Care Decisions Act, we find further that the son was not his mother’s surrogate, and that he did not have authority to bind her to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, we reverse the order compelling arbitration. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Alex Ikbariah AND I & K Enterprises v. Debra F. Williams
This appeal involves tort and breach of contract claims. The plaintiffs are franchisees of a restaurant chain. They filed this lawsuit against an individual employee of the franchise organization as well as other corporate defendants. The complaint set forth many theories of recovery, but asserted only an extortion claim against the individual employee. The trial court dismissed the extortion claim and, consequently, dismissed the employee from the lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ claims against the corporate defendants remained pending. The plaintiffs filed this appeal of the trial court’s order dismissing the claim against the individual employee. The plaintiffs were not given permission to file an interlocutory appeal, and the order from which the plaintiffs appeal was not designated as final under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. Thus, we find that the order from which the plaintiffs appeal was not a final order, and therefore dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Bee DeSelm, et al v. Tennessee Peace Officers Standards Commission, Tennessee Attorney General Timothy Hutchison and Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale
Plaintiffs brought this action against the Tennessee Peace Officers Standards Commission, the Tennessee Attorney General, Knox County Mayor and Timothy Hutchison seeking declaratory judgment that Hutchison was disqualified to serve as a deputy sheriff of Knox County. Responding to a Motion to Dismiss, the Chancellor dismissed the action and, on appeal, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cheryl McLemore Hearn, et al. v. Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al.
This appeal concerns the enforceability of an arbitration agreement between a nursing home and one of its patients. The trial court found that the agreement was unenforceable because the nursing home’s agent gave an insufficient explanation of the agreement’s meaning to the patient’s daughter. We do not reach the merits of the trial court’s conclusion. Instead, we find that the patient’s daughter did not have the authority to sign the agreement on her father’s behalf. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dale Anthony Scott, et al. v. Marion Yarbro, et al.
This is the third appeal of this property case involving the ownership of three parcels of real property held by tenants-in-common. We dismissed the first two appeals for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court's order did not constitute a final judgment. Plaintiffs/Appellants claim ownership of the disputed tract by three modes: (1) title by prescription, (2) title by adverse possession, and (3) title by payment of property taxes pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-2-109 and 29-2-110. Finding that Plaintiffs/Appellants have failed to meet their burden to prove ownership based upon any of the three theories, we affirm. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Diane Marie Depietto Guiliano v. Anthony Philip Guiliano
This appeal arises from a divorce action. The trial court found both parties guilty of inappropriate conduct and declared them divorced pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-4-129. The trial court awarded 55 percent of the marital property to Wife and 45 percent to Husband; ordered the marital residence sold and awarded the equity to Wife; awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $4,000 per month; ordered Husband to pay for Wife’s COBRA benefits and uninsured medical costs exceeding $45.00 until the benefits expire; and ordered each party to pay their own attorney’s fees. Wife appeals. We modify the trial court’s order with respect to life insurance and alimony as provided herein. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed. This matter is remanded for further proceedings, if necessary, and entry of an order consistent with this Opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Merry LeShane, as Next of Kin of Winnie Brumley, Deceased v. Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of Defendant/Appellant’s motion to compel arbitration under an arbitration agreement contained in a nursing home admissions agreement. This is a direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-5-319(a)(1). We vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect to the issue of authority. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gilbert Mohr v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation
This appeal is from a jury verdict against an automobile manufacturer for compensatory and punitive damages. The Circuit Court of Shelby County entered judgments against the defendant for $3,450,000 in compensatory and $48,778,000 in punitive damages for the death of the driver, and $1,100,000 in compensatory damages for the death of the front-seat passenger. The manufacturer on appeal asks this Court to reverse the judgment of liability or to grant a new trial on all issues. In the alternative, the defendant argues that the money judgments are excessive. We affirm the findings of liability for compensatory and punitive damages and we affirm the amounts awarded for compensatory damages. We also find that the amount of punitive damages awarded must be reduced to $13,800,000 to comply with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Trezevant Realty Corporation v. John E. Threlkeld, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute over a real estate sales commission and a third party claim for rent due under a commercial lease agreement. The tenant and the owners of the rental property entered into a listing agreement whereby the tenant’s real estate company would broker the sale of the leased property on behalf of the owners. The property in question was two commercial lots. The tenant was able to procure a sale of one of the commercial lots, and upon close of the sale, tenant stopped paying rent to the owners on the remaining commercial lot. Tenant then brought an offer for the sale of the second lot, which the owners rejected and made a counter-offer. No deal was reached, and the owners terminated the tenant’s agency authority. Through another real estate agency, the owners sold the remaining lot. The tenant’s real estate company brought suit, seeking to collect the real estate commission. The owners sought the rent due on the unsold lot for the time remaining under the lease. The trial court found that the tenant was not entitled to a real estate commission, and that the tenant owed the owners rent, but reduced the amount due to the owner’s failure to mitigate damages. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Harry Jacocks And Dorothy Jacocks v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water
This is a negligence action. Appellees filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that its employee negligently drove a company truck into the back of Appellees’ car. Appellant was granted partial summary judgment because a latent mechanical problem caused its truck’s brakes to fail. The trial court then held a bench trial to determine if the employee’s negligent driving was also a cause of the accident. Although it made no findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the employee was negligent, and awarded Appellee, Harry Jacocks $15,350 in damages. Appellant appeals, asserting that the evidence presented does not support the trial court’s judgment. Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.R. (DOB 8/13/05) A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age
Mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. The minor child has been in the custody of the Department of Children’s Services since he was five months old, as the juvenile court found that he was dependent and neglected. Following approximately sixteen months of services and a failed trial home visit, DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the ground of “persistence of conditions.” We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Erica Lin v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
Erica Lin (“Plaintiff”) began working as a teacher for The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Defendant”) in 2002. During her employment, Plaintiff complained of actions which she believed to be discriminatory based on her race and alleged disability. Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter on April 1, 2006, informing her that her employment was being terminated effective May 26, 2006. Plaintiff eventually abandoned her race and disability discrimination claims and proceeded only on a claim for retaliatory discharge. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts established that Plaintiff was terminated for poor work performance. The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appeals. We conclude that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment neither negated an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim nor conclusively established an affirmative defense. Therefore, we vacate the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Orndorff and wife, Marguerite Orndorff v. Edward Ron Calahan and wife, Diane R. Calahan
The buyers of a home in Nashville sued the sellers for misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of contract. The proof showed the sellers did not acquire the proper permits and inspections required by the applicable building codes and that work on the plumbing, the electrical system, and the heating and air conditioning system was not performed in accordance with the codes. The sellers did not disclose the lack of permits and improper work on the statutorily required disclosure form. The chancellor found for the buyers. The sellers appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
