Kim Brown v. William Shappley, M.D.
This is the second appearance of the dispute between these parties in this Court. The current appeal arises from the trial court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff/Appellant Kim Brown (Mr. Brown). Upon motion by Defendant/Appellee William Shappley, M.D. (Dr. Shappley), the trial court dismissed Mr. Brown’s breach of contract action and awarded Dr. Shappley attorney’s fees in the amount of $500 pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm dismissal of Mr. Brown’s action under the doctrine of res judicata, but reverse the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions and the award of attorney’s fees. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, et al. v. Clayton R. Smart, et al.
This case involves the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court entered a pre-trial order requiring the defendant to produce various personal and business records and to compile a list of the assets belonging to the defendant and his businesses. The defendant failed to comply with or object to the order. At a contempt hearing, the defendant’s attorney assured the chancellor that the defendant would comply with the order if the contempt hearing was continued for two more weeks, and the chancellor continued the matter. At the next hearing, the defendant’s attorney stated that his client would not be complying with the order based on Fifth Amendment grounds. The chancellor held the defendant in civil contempt and ordered the defendant’s attorney to pay the opposing party’s attorneys’ fees. The defendant and his attorney appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Frances Rodriguez v. Charles G. Price
This is an appeal from a Final Judgment issued by the Chancellor in respect to a Petition for Registration and Modification of Foreign Decree in the Chancery Court of Blount County, Tennessee. The Trial Court ordered the registration of the foreign Judgment, but denied the request for modification. On appeal, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Dr. Victor W. Horadam v. Sue Stewart, Executrix of the Estate of Andre Alice Norton
Executrix appeals the trial court’s interpretation of language from decedent’s Last Will and Testament. Decedent was a well-known author of science fiction literature and the rights to that literature comprise a significant portion of her estate. Beneficiary under Will sought construction specifically of his bequest granting “the royalties from all posthumous publication of any of my works[.]” The trial court held there was a patent ambiguity in the Will precluding extrinsic evidence of intent. Executrix objected and made an offer of proof of decedent’s intended use and meaning of the terms “copyright,” “royalties,” and “posthumous publication.” The court found decedent used “copyright” and “royalties” interchangeably and intended Beneficiary to have both the copyrights and posthumous royalties from all of her works.
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Mary Lott v. Ernest Lott, III
This appeal involves the payment of child support in a Title IV-D proceeding. The parents of the minor child were divorced, and the father was ordered to pay child support. In a contempt hearing, the father was found to have a substantial arrearage on his support obligation. Two years later, the State filed a petition on behalf of the mother for contempt and for modification of the child support order. The petition alleged that the father’s arrearage was unchanged. A child support worksheet submitted at the hearing showed the father’s child support obligation. The mother testified, however, that the father had been paying money directly to her for the benefit of the child. Based on the mother’s testimony, the trial court reduced the father’s monthly child support obligation to zero. Both of the parents testified that the father had paid a significant portion of the arrearage directly to the mother. The trial court credited the father for the amount that he had purportedly paid directly to the mother and reduced the remaining arrearage to a judgment. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court was required by statute to have the father pay his current support obligation through the Department of Human Services, rather than directly to the mother, and that the trial court was prohibited from crediting the father for payments on the arrearage made directly to the mother, rather than through DHS. We agree, and reverse the trial court’s order in part and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Dhananjaya R. Marpaka v. James A. Hefner and Tennessee State University
This appeal involves alleged discrimination based on religion and national origin. The plaintiff is a native of India and a practitioner of Hinduism, and is employed as an associate professor at the defendant university. The plaintiff applied for a promotion to full professor. His application for promotion was denied, based on his lack of achievement in either academic research or public service activities. The plaintiff professor filed a lawsuit alleging that the university discriminated against him on the basis of national origin and religion. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, proffering the professor’s lack of research and public service as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying his application for promotion. The plaintiff conceded his lack of research and public service, but asserted that he was denied release time from his teaching responsibilities to engage in such activities. The trial court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff professor appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff professor cannot show the denial of his application for promotion was discriminatory because he cannot show that he was qualified for such a promotion. We also find the record insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the denial of release time from the plaintiff’s teaching responsibilities was discriminatory. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tetra Tech, Inc. v. Performa Entertainment Real Estate,Inc.
This is a contract action wherein the parties dispute which of two versions of a professional services agreement is controlling. The trial court determined that the contract/counter-offer proffered by Defendant buyer was the contract between the parties, and that there had been accord and satisfaction when Plaintiff deposited Defendant’s check for the payment amount asserted by Defendant. We reverse the trial court’s finding of accord and satisfaction. We further hold that the contract found by the trial court to be the applicable contract is unenforceable where the contract price is indefinite and where there was a lack of mutual assent to essential terms. We hold Plaintiff is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered and remand for further proceedings to determine that amount. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sammy L. Halliburton v. Town of Halls
This case requires us to inquire whether the Town of Halls was immune under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) for maintaining a baseball field that the plaintiff alleges is a nuisance because one of many balls that flew over the field’s fence into a residential neighborhood injured him. The trial court held that the Town of Halls was immune from liability because it had engaged in a discretionary function and that the baseball field did not constitute a nuisance. On appeal, we find that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Town of Halls had notice of any dangerous condition of the baseball field in Kevan Ward Park, and, thus, we affirm the trial court on the basis that the Town of Halls was immune from liability pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Smith v. State of Tennessee Department of Correction
This is an appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an inmate |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Murphy, individually, d/b/a/ Cool Flame Lamps v. Resurgence Financial, LLC, Assignee of Wells Fargo Bank
Appellee Bank filed suit against Appellant to collect for charges made to Appellant’s account. The general sessions court entered judgment in favor of Appellee Bank; Appellant, proceeding pro se, appealed that decision to the Circuit Court at Carroll County. The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the general sessions court and Appellant appeals. In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, the trial court’s factual findings are conclusive on appeal, and we affirm. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Carl Anderson, Ed Howell Anderson, and Gary Anderson, v. U.S.A. Truck, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation and Lonzie E. Neal
This is a vehicular accident case. The three plaintiffs, a father and two grown sons, were riding in a truck pulling a trailer. An 18-wheeler driven by the individual defendant rear-ended the plaintiffs. In the days after the accident, all three plaintiffs sought medical treatment for back and neck pain. They filed this lawsuit against the defendants for injuries sustained in the accident. In the jury trial, after the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the six-day trial, the jury awarded two of the plaintiffs $10,000 each in damages and awarded the other plaintiff $200,000. Fault for the accident was apportioned 70% to the defendant and 30% to the driver of the plaintiffs’ truck, so the plaintiffs’ awards were reduced by 30%. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to for additur or for a new trial. The plaintiffs now appeal, claiming that the issue of punitive damages should have been presented to the jury, that the amount of the jury’s awards were de minimus and outside the realm of reasonableness, and that there was no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm, finding inter alia that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict on the issue of punitive damages, and that material evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel Claude Cain, et al v. City of Chuch Hill, Tennessee
The State of Tennessee, proceeding on relation of six individuals and one entity (who, for ease of reference, will collectively be referred to as “the plaintiffs”), sought mandamus in 2002 to force the City of Church Hill (“the City”) to extend a sewer line to the individuals’ homes. The individuals are residents of a neighborhood in Hawkins County that was annexed by the City in 1988. They claim that the City failed to adhere to the plan of services adopted as part of the annexation process, and that the plaintiffs are therefore entitled to mandamus under Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-108 (2005). The plan of services adopted in 1988 states that “[a] sanitary sewer system will be provided as soon as economically feasible.” The trial court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment, finding that the long delay in installing a sewer system, which continued at the time of trial, was unreasonable, and that there were no disputed issues of material fact preventing the court from granting mandamus under § 6-51-108. However, the court ordered a trial on the issue of how quickly the City could reasonably install the sewer line. At the conclusion of this limited-purpose trial, the court ordered the City to extend sewer service to the plaintiffs within 16 months. The City appeals. We vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Dawn Haines Huddleston v. Lee Alan Haines
In this custody dispute between parents, the Trial Judge awarded the mother attorney’s fees against the father. On appeal, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: C.M.C. Michelle Marie Chaffin v. Cheryl Leathers et al.
Mother of minor child appeals a juvenile court order rejecting her challenge to the validity of a 2004 order awarding custody of the child to maternal grandparents. Mother argues that the 2004 order is void because she did not receive notice of the proceedings and the order does not contain necessary findings. Mother further argues that the juvenile court erred in failing to give her a full hearing. We have determined that the appealed order arose out of dependency and neglect proceedings and, therefore, must be appealed to the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allied Business Brokers, Inc. v. Abed Amro, et al. - Memorandum Opinion
This is the second appearance of the dispute between these parties in this Court. This lawsuit has its genesis in a 1995 general sessions court action wherein Plaintiff/Appellee Allied Business Brokers, Inc. (“Allied’) sought damages for breach of contract. The facts and procedural history of the breach of contract action are recited in Allied Business Brokers, Inc. v. Abraham Musa, et al., No. W1999-00378-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 33191373 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2000) (perm. app. denied May 14, 2001), and we find it unnecessary to repeat them here. In Allied Business, we held Defendant Abed Amro (Mr. Amro) was bound by the terms of a brokerage contract that he had signed on behalf of his friend, Defendant Abraham Musa. We remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of a judgment in favor of Allied. Id. at *4. In the meantime, in 1997 Mr. Amro conveyed certain real property to his wife, Nida Amro (Ms. Amro). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Burse And Wife, June Burse v. Frank W. Hicks, III, et al.
This is a negligence action. Burse filed a complaint against Appellant alleging that Appellant had negligently injured him in an automobile accident. Appellant answered the complaint, in part, by alleging that the accident was caused by the negligence of Appellee. At the time of the accident, Appellee and Burse were standing next to each other while preparing for a Christmas parade. Appellee moved for summary judgment alleging that he owed no duty to Burse and that he was not the cause of the accident. The trial court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
C.S. v. The Diocese of Nashville
This case arose from the sexual abuse of a minor by a Catholic priest. The plaintiff, the victim, claimed the defendant, the priest’s employer, knew of and concealed the priest’s propensity to commit sex crimes against adolescent boys. Approximately thirty (30) years after the abuse, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that such actions constituted outrageous conduct and negligence by the defendant leading to the plaintiff’s abuse. The defendant moved for dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the statute of limitations bars such actions brought more than one year after the minor reaches the age of majority. The plaintiff argued the defendant’s fraudulent concealment of plaintiff’s cause of action tolled the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover his cause of action against the defendant before the statute of limitations expired. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Marie Walls Altman v. Benjamin Altman
The Trial Judge awarded the wife a divorce in this case and ordered the husband to pay periodic alimony in the amount of $5,000.00 a month. The husband has appealed and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court, as modified. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Cindy Goodson Harvey, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al.
Ronald W. Harvey, Jr., was involved in an automobile accident while driving a 1999 Dodge Caravan in the course of his employment with B&W Wholesalers. At the time of the accident, Mr. Harvey and his wife, Cindy Goodson Harvey (collectively “the Harveys”), had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Insurance Company”) that listed the Caravan as the covered vehicle. However, the policy included an exclusion for any vehicle “[w]hile used in employment by any person whose primary duties are the delivery of products or services[.]” Insurance Company refused to defend the Harveys in a lawsuit regarding the accident, claiming that the exclusion applies. The Harveys sought a declaratory judgment that the accident was covered by the policy. After a bench trial, the court dismissed the case and declared that the exclusion applied. The Harveys appeal, arguing that “delivery of products or services” was not among Mr. Harvey’s “primary duties,” and that, in any event, Insurance Company should be estopped from denying coverage because it knew how Mr. Harvey intended to use the van and provided coverage anyway. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy George Rogers
The Trial Court held defendant in contempt. On appeal, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Christina R. Britt, et al. v. Maury County Board of Education, et al.
The trial court granted the Board of Education’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing a cheerleader’s two claims for personal injury under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 et seq. We affirm the judgment as to the claim that the Board negligently hired the sponsor of the cheerleading squad. Finding, however, that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the cheerleading squad sponsor’s negligence, we reverse that portion of the judgment. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Georgia-Pacific LLC, et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation
This appeal involves the indemnity and insurance provisions of a contract, which must be interpreted according to Georgia law. The trial court found that the defendant had no duty to indemnify or insure the plaintiff for a claim based on the plaintiff’s own negligence. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sara K. Ruder v. Joseph R. Ruder
This is a divorce case involving the interpretation of a Prenuptial Agreement. Husband/Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision to reimburse certain expenditures made by Wife as “improvements” to the marital home. Wife/Appellee appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer McClain Swan v. Frank Edward Swan
Jennifer McClain Swan (“Mother”) and Frank Edward Swan (“Father”) were divorced in March of 2006 in Knox County Chancery Court (“Chancery Court”). The parties have two minor children born of the marriage (“the Children”). In October of 2006, Mother obtained first an Ex Parte Order of Protection against Father and then a Bridging Ex Parte Order of Protection from the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County (“Circuit Court”). Over the next few months, Mother filed multiple petitions for contempt alleging that Father had violated the Order of Protection. After a hearing, the Circuit Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that Father had violated the Bridging Order of Protection a total of forty-four times, that Father would serve time in the Knox County Penal Farm, that Mother had a no-contact Order of Protection against Father for ten years, and that Mother would be allowed to relocate outside the state of Tennessee without having to reveal her address to Father. The Circuit Court also entered a modification of the Chancery Court’s Permanent Parenting Plan that, inter alia, named Mother the primary residential parent and provided that Father would have co-parenting time with the Children only upon the recommendation and approval of Father’s psychologist, the Children’s psychologist, the Guardian Ad Litem, and the Court. Father appeals to this Court. We vacate the Permanent Parenting Plan entered by the Circuit Court and affirm the remainder of the Order of Protection.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Universal Outdoor, Inc., et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
The Tennessee Department of Transportation ordered the removal of a long-existing billboard to permit the expansion of a highway right-of-way. The billboard’s owner removed the sign and reinstalled it on another part of its leasehold, within 30 feet of its original location. The Department refused to renew the permit for the sign or to issue a new permit because its new location did not comply with the requirements of The Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972. The owner challenged that decision at an administrative hearing, arguing that it was entitled to maintain the nonconforming billboard at its new location under the “grandfathering” clause of the zoning statute. The administrative law judge disagreed and ordered the billboard’s removal. The chancery court affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge. We affirm the chancery court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
