State of Tennessee v. Mohamed Miray
Mohamed Miray, Defendant, was indicted for and convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant was identified and charged in part based upon a match to DNA found at the scene of the murder. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress in which he argued that his DNA was not properly in the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”) because he was acquitted of a charge for which he was required to give a DNA sample when arrested and that his DNA should have been removed from the database as a result of the acquittal. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was convicted by a jury and filed a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Bryan Hibdon v. Danielle Goynes
A father petitioned a Tennessee court to modify its previous parenting plan. The father lived in Tennessee, but the mother and the child lived in Arkansas. Claiming Tennessee was an inconvenient forum, the mother moved to transfer the case to Arkansas. The court denied the transfer request. Later, the court entered a default judgment against the mother as a sanction for her failure to appear for her deposition. After hearing proof, it adopted the father’s proposed parenting plan. On appeal, the mother contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parenting plan. She also challenges the court’s denial of her transfer request, its refusal to set aside the default judgment, and the adoption of a modified plan. We conclude that the court erred in modifying the parenting plan without conducting a best interest analysis. So we vacate the adoption of a modified plan and remand for further proceedings on this issue. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Kelly, et al. v. Thomas A. Stewart
This appeal concerns the garnishment of an inherited Individual Retirement Account. Advanced Hearing Aid Group, LLC (“AHAG”), Gary Kelly, Kenneth Kelly, and Matthew Kelly (“Plaintiffs,” collectively) filed an application for writ of garnishment in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County (“the Trial Court”) against Thomas A. Stewart (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs sought to collect a judgment against Defendant stemming from a lawsuit over AHAG. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to garnish an IRA that Defendant inherited from his mother (“the Inherited IRA”). Defendant is both a fiduciary and beneficiary of the Inherited IRA. Defendant filed a motion to quash, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105(b) and its exemption of certain retirement plans from garnishment. The Trial Court held that, while the Inherited IRA was exempt from garnishment initially, it lost its exempt status because Defendant made prohibited transactions from the Inherited IRA to a disqualified party, a revocable trust of which Defendant is a 50% or more beneficiary (“the Revocable Trust”). Defendant appeals, arguing that he essentially transferred the funds to himself, which all sides agree is permitted. We hold, inter alia, that Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-105(b) never applied to the Inherited IRA in the first place. We hold further that, even if the Inherited IRA had once been exempt, it stopped being exempt after Defendant’s prohibited transactions. We affirm as modified. Pursuant to AHAG’s operating agreement, AHAG is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal, the amount of which the Trial Court is to determine on remand. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas West v. David Gerregano, Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue
Appellant, an attorney residing in Kansas but licensed in both Kansas and Tennessee, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s professional privilege tax. A three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant commissioner of revenue, ruling that the tax did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE MAISYNN Y.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her daughter. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court also determined that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
AMONETT’S EAGLE AUCTION & REALTY, LLC v. NORRIS BROS. PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.
In this action between parties to an auction contract, the trial court determined that the defendant property company and its individual members had committed intentional fraud, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and civil conspiracy. The court found that during an auction of the defendants’ property, they had bid to increase the price, caused a “shill bidder” to cast bids, and then refused to purchase the property after the defendants’ company cast the highest bid. The court additionally found the defendants liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff auction company and awarded to the plaintiff a total judgment in the amount of $91,825.00. The defendants have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Autumn L. et al. v. James C.
Mother and Stepfather sought to terminate Father’s parental rights to two minor children, alleging abandonment by failure to conduct more than token visitation. The trial court determined that the regular video-call visitation exercised by Father was not token, but that to the extent that the visitation could be considered token, Mother’s interference prevented a finding that such abandonment was willful. Father’s rights were not terminated. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Arlo L.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish several statutory grounds of termination as applied to the father. The court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. We now affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ka'Myiah M. et al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to four biological children and one child for whom he was the legal parent. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
ELIJAH W. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
This appeal involves judicial review of an administrative agency decision. The trial court found that the agency’s decision lacked a foundation of substantial and material evidence and remanded the matter to the agency for further investigation or proceedings. Having determined that the trial court impermissibly re-weighed the evidence presented in this matter, we reverse the court’s judgment and affirm the agency’s decision. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Regina Sessel, et al. v. N.J. Ford and Sons Funeral Home, Inc., et al.
This appeal involves allegations of the mishandling of a dead human body by the funeral home and cemetery responsible for its final disposition. The decedent’s mother brought tort and breach of contract claims based on her assertion that the decedent’s body had been cremated rather than buried. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE LINCOLN S. ET AL.
The trial court denied a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to two minor children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit, as well as failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the children. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the petitioners proved no statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Because the petitioners proved no grounds for termination, we need not address the children’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
DEAN SALEM, ET AL. v. NICK GALBRAITH, ET AL.
This is a dispute over the use of real property in a subdivision. Certain property owners filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin other property owners in the subdivision from using or allowing the use of their properties as short-term rentals. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint based on interpretation of the restrictive covenants applicable to their properties. The trial court dismissed all causes of action. We affirm in part, and reverse in part. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ELIAS H. ET AL.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 9, 2025. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until August 11, 2025, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Ayzelee G.
Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of mental incompetence and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. Father also appeals the trial court’s determination that |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel Adam Reese v. Lynette Erin Reese
The parties sought a divorce from one another and specifically contested who should be |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Thomas B.
In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his child, the Loudon |
Court of Appeals | ||
Luther Smith v. Foremost Insurance Group, et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed due to substantive failures to comply with Rule 10B. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Buhler, et al. v. Lefkovitz & Lefkovitz, PLLC
This is a legal malpractice action that arises from alleged acts or omissions committed by attorney Steven L. Lefkovitz of Lefkovitz & Lefkovitz, PLLC, (“Defendant”) while representing Julie Buhler in a real estate dispute with Richard and Ellen Davis (“Sellers”) under an installment sales contract. The trial court summarily dismissed the legal malpractice action on the ground that two essential elements of a legal malpractice claim were not proven, specifically that “Plaintiff has failed to prove that Mr. Lefkovitz’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of her damages,” and “Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Lefkovitz’s conduct was the proximate cause of her damages.” This appeal followed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mark E. Hatley v. Ann E. Hatley
This is a divorce case following a long-term marriage. Wife appeals the trial court’s: 1) valuation and distribution of marital property and allocation of debt; 2) award of transitional alimony; 3) downward deviation of Husband’s child support obligation; and 4) denial of her request for her attorney’s fees to be paid from the marital estate. We affirm the trial court’s valuation of property; vacate the trial court’s division of marital debt, in part; vacate the alimony award; and reverse the court’s downward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Kinsinger, Jr.
In 2021, the Defendant, Richard Kinsinger, Jr., pleaded guilty to sexual battery by an authority figure, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve six months in confinement and five years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Madison B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. (“Father”) to their Child, Madison B. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison and Madison’s older sister, Kaylee B., in two separate petitions filed in the Sevier County Juvenile Court (“trial court”).1 The trial court conducted a joint hearing on both petitions and entered two separate orders terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to each child.2 The trial court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Madison after finding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon the ground of mental incompetence. The trial court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Madison’s best interest. Father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Kaylee B.
This case focuses on the termination of parental rights of Violet B. (“Mother”) and Coy B. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Virginia Dodson-Stephens et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a mother, individually and on behalf of her daughter, against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the State of Tennessee after her daughter sustained paralyzing injuries while attending a public school. After a four-day bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants were negligent and that each was fifty percent at fault for the child’s injuries. The trial court found that the plaintiffs should be awarded total compensatory damages of $10,902,348.02, but it reduced the judgment to $600,000 ($300,000 against each defendant) in accordance with the applicable statutory caps. Metro has appealed, while the State has not. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Richard Douglas Roberson
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff sought to determine whether the defendant was an heir to the estate. The trial court determined that the defendant was not an heir and divided the estate accordingly amongst the legal heirs. We now affirm. |
Court of Appeals |
