Kim Brown v. Mapco Express, Inc.
This appeal involves claims arising from a verbal exchange at a gas station. The plaintiff customer gave cash to a clerk employed at the defendant gas station to pay for gas. After a verbal exchange between the clerk and the customer, the customer left the gas station. The customer promptly filed this lawsuit, alleging a variety of tort claims, including defamation, false light in the public eye, and infliction of emotional distress. The complaint sought damages in excess of a billion – with a “b”– dollars. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant gas station. The customer appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Precision Castings of Tennessee, Inc. v. H and H Manufacturing Company, Inc.
The defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, challenges the trial court’s decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Based upon the defendant’s initiation of a contractualrelationship with a Tennessee manufacturerand itsentry into a contractproviding that Tennessee law would control, we affirm the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction in this dispute arising out of the contract. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Candice M. Van Bibber (Formerly Lannin-Glinstra) v. Marc A. Glinstra
The father has appealed from an order entered on September 20, 2011, granting the mother’s motion to dismiss the father’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion but reserving several other matters for a final hearing. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Langford et al. v. Jeane Clark
In this conversionaction,the trialcourtentered judgmentagainstthe defendantupon findings that she abused a confidential relationship, exerted undue influence, and improperly converted funds of her sister while she had dementia. The defendant appeals contending the action is time barred; she also contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the deposition of her sister’s physician because she did not receive notice of the deposition. We have determined that the statute of limitations was tolled from the accrual of the claim of conversion until the death of the defendant’s sister due to the sister being of unsound mind and that the action was timely filed after her death. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the deposition into evidence because the trial court afforded the defendant the opportunity to depose the physician but she failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
David G. Rogers, ex rel., Karen Wright v. Autozone Stores, Inc.
This is a premises liability case in which Karen Wright alleged that she slipped in a puddle of water and fell on the floor while exiting an Autozone store. She filed suit against Autozone Stores, Inc., claiming negligence. Autozone Stores, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Karen Wright could not prove that it caused the condition which led to her fall or that it had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to her fall. Autozone Stores, Inc. also alleged that Karen Wright could not recover because she was 50 percent or more at fault for her injuries. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Karen Wright appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Caydence B. and Kimberly B.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and that termination is in the best interests of the children. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding persistence of conditions. However, we affirm the trial court’s finding of abandonment and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Jaylen J. (d.o.b. 10/1/08) and Justin A. (12/1/05)
This appeal arises from a dependency and neglect petition originally filed by the Department of Children’s Services in the Juvenile Court for Shelby County in May 2010. We dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner v. Raymond T. Carriger
Raymond T. Carriger (“Carriger”) filed a petition to terminate his child support obligation in the Chancery Court for Meigs County (“the Trial Court”). The State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner (“the State”) opposed Carriger’s petition. Carriger argued that he suffered from a disability and, as a result, was unable ever to pay off the arrearages he had accumulated. The Trial Court granted Carriger’s petition and absolved him of his child support arrearages. The State appeals, arguing that such a retroactive modification of child support is prohibited under Tennessee law. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Alexis M.M.
Jason C. (“Putative Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, Alexis M.M. (“the Child”). The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) pursued termination after Putative Father was incarcerated and the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected in the care of her mother, LeAnn M. (“Mother”). Following a bench trial, the court applied Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), applicable to non-legal parents, and terminated Putative Father’s rights based upon multiple grounds, including the failure to provide child support, to visit, or to establish his paternity. Putative Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of these grounds. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Carl Baker v. Antoinette Welch
Plaintiff in case alleging legal malpractice appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant attorney. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Irtira Herbert v. Jerald L. Harding
The mother of an eleven year old boy asked his father to take care of the child for a few weeks because she was moving out of her apartment. The mother did not find a place of her own for the next six months. Meanwhile, the father enrolled the child in school, boy scouts and football, and filed a petition for change of custody. The father alleged that there had been a change of circumstances in that the mother’s unstable home life and frequent moves adversely affected the child at school and elsewhere, and that the child’s grades and his attitudes had greatly improved while he was under the father’s care. After a hearing, the trial court transferred custody of the child to the father. The mother argues on appeal that, contrary to the trial court’s finding, there had not been a material change of circumstances, and that the trial court’s decision placed too much emphasis on an incident when she was arrested for shoplifting in the presence of the child. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy D. Caldwell v. Linda Neal as Clerk of the Circuit Court, Wilson County, Tennessee
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute. We hold that, in light of the uncontradicted fact that Plaintiff was not properly served with notice of the trial date, the case should not have been dismissed. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Klein and Angela Klein v. Hardin County, Tennessee, et al.
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, a property developer. The underlying case is for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in a motorcycle accident, which was allegedly caused by a pothole in the road. The question presented for determination is, as between Appellee and Appellant Hardin County, who owns the portion of the road where the accident occurred. After completing its development, Appellee dedicated portions of the roadway to Hardin County for public use. However, in cross-motions for summary judgment the Appellee and Appellant each claimed that the other owned the disputed portion of the road where the accident occurred. Although the disputed portion of the road was specifically excluded from the dedication, and Appellee maintained the road, the trial court determined that Appellee had implicitly dedicated the disputed portion to Appellant and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee developer. Based upon the evidence in record, we conclude that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions concerning ownership of the road and accordingly, reverse the grant of summary judgment. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Blair Wood, et al v. Tony Wolfenbarger, et al.
Blair Wood and Gary Wood (“Plaintiffs”) sued Tony Wolfenbarger and Brenda Wolfenbarger (“Defendants”) alleging, in part, that Defendants had wrongfully cut down six trees on Plaintiffs’ real property. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants were liable for negligently cutting the trees, that the current market value of the timber cut was $840, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in double the amount of the current market value of the timber pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-28-312. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court alleging that the Trial Court erred in awarding damages based upon the timber value. We find and hold that the evidence preponderates against the finding that timber value was the correct measure of damages in this case. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment to award Plaintiffs damages of $62,100 based upon the trunk formula method of valuation and affirm the judgment as so modified. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Leslie Newpher Tachek v. David James Tachek
In this divorce action the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, gave custody of the children to the father, divided the marital property and ordered a monetary judgment against the mother to the father, as an equitable distribution of the marital property. The mother has appealed and questioned the Trial Judge's award of custody of the children to the father, and the Trial Judge ordering a monetary judgment against the mother to the father. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Layla C.S.
Petitioner filed a Rule 60.02 motion to set aside a parental termination and adoption decree. The motion asked relief from the Judgment on the ground set forth in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 62.02(1) and (2). The Trial Court held that petitioner did not establish a basis to set aside the Judgment on the grounds relied upon in the Rule 60.02 motion. On appeal we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles A. Harmon, et al. v. James J.J. Jones, et al.
Property of the appellants was seized following a traffic stop. Requests for return of the property were denied by the Knox County Sheriff’s Department. The appellants, who were not facing any criminal charges, filed an action in criminal court seeking the return of all the seized property. The Sheriff’s Department subsequently filed drug forfeiture warrants and property receipts. The appellants argued that the Sheriff’s Department was attempting to initiate Department of Safety jurisdiction in disregard of their earlier filing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the action, asserting lack of jurisdiction. The appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Department of Safety ex rel. Charles A. Harmon, et al. v. Carltone E. Bryant, IV, et al.
This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to have the appellees held in criminal contempt based upon their failure to comply with various subpoenas commanding them to appear at depositions and produce documents to be used by the appellants in the context of an administrative asset forfeiture proceeding on the docket of the Tennessee Department of Safety. The petition was filed in the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tennessee. It was denied on grounds that the court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Waste Services of Decatur, LLC v. County of Lawrence, et al.
Losing proposer for solid waste management services challenges Lawrence County’s decision to contract with another proposer. Because we find that the County acted arbitrarily and illegally in making its decision, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
E. Ron Pickard and Linda Pickard, as Trustees of the Sharon Charitable Trust and as Individuals v. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Water Quality Control Board and Tennessee Materials Corporation
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a permit allowing a proposed rock quarry to discharge storm water and wastewater into a nearby creek. Owners of property allegedly affected by the discharge filed an appeal challenging the issuance of the permit with the Water Quality Control Board, as well as a petition seeking a declaratory order construing the rules regarding the protection of existing uses of waters. The Water Quality Control Board refused to issue a declaratory order and the property owners appealed to the Davidson County Chancery Court. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested,we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for dismissal of this cause. Vacated and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Plants, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company et al.
This is the second of two similar but separate civil actions and appeals among the same |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Plants, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company et al.
At issue is the scope of a binding arbitration clause in a federally-reinsured multiple peril crop insurance policy and the scope of federal preemption of common law claims. The insured, a nursery in Warren County, Tennessee, suffered a catastrophic loss of stock, primarily trees and shrubs, due to a tornado on April 7, 2006. The insured submitted a claim in excess of a million dollars. The adjuster determined, due to “under-reporting of inventory”, that the insured was only entitled to recover $195,225. The insured demanded arbitration; the arbitrator ruled that the insured was due no additional payment. Thereafter, the insured filed this action asserting common law claims against the insurer, its adjustment firm, and the independent insurance agency that solicited the policy, for breach of contract, negligence, breach of the duty of care, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory bad faith. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims against the insurer and its adjustment firm finding the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata because the issues were decided at arbitration and that the insured’s only remedy was judicial review of the arbitration decision. On appeal, the insured contends that its state law claims were not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Appellees disagree and additionally assert that the insured’s common law claims are preempted by federal law. We have determined the claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of care, and statutory bad faith are preempted by federal law; however, the claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation are not preempted by federal law and are not barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this action for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
In Re $1,683.05 Deposited in Attorney's Trust Account
Attorney representing the husband in a divorce proceeding claimed a statutory lien on funds in his trust account to secure payment of his fee; the attorney filed a separate action seeking a determination of his rights to funds held in his trust account. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. Finding that the court dismissed the case employing an erroneous legal standard, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Jacob et al. v. Alexis Partee and Tom Bedell, Jr., v. Top Gun Body Shop
Appellants attempted to appeal the decision of the General Sessions Court to the Circuit Court without filing an appeal bond, but the Circuit Court dismissed the attempted appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants claim that an appeal bond need not be filed where an appeal filing fee is paid. We find that, to perfect an appeal from General Sessions Court to Circuit Court, an appeal bond must be filed; payment of the appeal filing fee does not satisfy this jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the matter. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Rose Baker v. Jeffrey D. Baker
In this contentious post-divorce dispute, the father has appealed from the trial court’s order |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
