Opinions

Deborah Lorraine Brooks v. Rickey Lamar Brooks - Dissenting
03S01-9804-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

It is apparent that this Court has based its finding that Mr. Brooks is willfully and voluntarily underemployed simply on the fact that he, at one time, was more lucratively employed. Simply because a parent is not as lucratively employed as during the marriage, or for a time thereafter, no automatic inference that he or she is willfully and voluntarily underemployed should be drawn. We must remain cognizant of a parent’s right as a citizen to the pursuit of happiness and to the freedom to make reasonable employment decisions, while at the same time heeding the duty to support.

April Wallace, Vickie Guinn, et al., v. National Bank of Commerce, et al.
02S01-9509-CV-00074
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge James M. Tharpe

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court found that the
record shows, as a matter of law, that the defendant banks did not breach the duty of good faith in imposing fees for returned checks drawn on accounts with insufficient funds.
This Court concurs in the decision made by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Cheryl Hall v. James H. Crenshaw, M.D., The Jackson Clinic Professional Association, et al.

Cedric Dickerson v. State of Tennessee

Cedric Dickerson (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life without the possibility of parole for his first degree felony murder conviction and eleven years for his aggravated robbery conviction and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. See State v. Cedric Dickerson, No. 02C01-9802-CR-00051, 1999 WL 74213, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 1999). The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following a post-conviction hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that “the Eighth Amendment should prohibit life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.” Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision denying relief.

In re Conservatorship of Bill Bartlett

This is a conservatorship case. Appellee hospital filed a petition for appointment of an expedited limited healthcare fiduciary for the Appellant patient because the hospital believed that Appellant could not be safely discharged without assistance. The trial court determined that the appointment of a limited healthcare fiduciary was appropriate and in the Appellant’s best interest. The trial court then granted Appellee’s motion to amend its petition to include the appointment of a conservator. The trial court found that Appellant is an individual with disabilities, and further found that it is in the Appellant’s best interest to have a conservator appointed. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.
 

State of Tennessee v. John Henry Pruitt

State of Tennessee v. Curtis Colston

In Re: Cidney L.

In Re: Cidney L.

In Re: Cidney L.

In Re: Cidney L.

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She argues that the trial court erred in holding that clear and convincing evidence established that she engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to her incarceration and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both of the trial court’s findings. We affirm.

Earl Ray Hancock, Et Al. v. Danny J. Brown, Et Al.

Marlon Yarbro v. State of Tennessee

Denver Joe McMath, Jr. v. State of Tennessee

The petitioner, Denver Joe McMath, Jr., appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. Tony Dale Crass

The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Tony Dale Crass, Defendant, with driving under the influence (DUI), DUI per se, and possession of a firearm while under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the State did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that video evidence of Defendant’s driving was erased and deleted as a result of a malfunctioning recording system in Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) Trooper Joey Story’s patrol car. The trial court concluded that the loss of video evidence constituted a violation of the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence recognized in State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and deprived Defendant of the right to a fair trial. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, and the State appealed. We conclude that the video was not lost or destroyed by the State, (2) that a Ferguson violation is not applicable to a suppression hearing based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a traffic stop, (3) that the trial court misapplied the “degree of negligence” Ferguson factor by equating perceived public policy decisions on the part of the State to negligence, and (4) that Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected without dismissal of the indictment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings.

In Re Zoey O. Et Al.
E2022-00500-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy E. Irwin

Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights as to her two oldest
children. As grounds for termination the trial court found abandonment for failure to
provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistent
conditions, severe child abuse, and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume
custody. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interest of both children.
We find that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings as to the
grounds for termination and the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.

Kristina Cole v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01245-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Robert Carter, Jr.

Petitioner, Kristina Cole, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from her Shelby
County convictions for two counts of conspiracy to possess 300 grams or more of
methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver in a drug-free zone and two counts of
possession of 300 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver in a
drug-free zone. Petitioner contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel
based upon counsel’s failure to: (1) object to irrelevant and prejudicial text messages
introduced at trial; (2) file a Bruton motion; (3) contest that Petitioner tracked the package
containing the methamphetamine; (4) adequately prepare for trial; (5) object when the State
argued that Petitioner’s silence implied guilt; (6) object when the prosecutor “testified
during closing argument in order to bolster his own credibility”; and (7) object when the
prosecutor intentionally misrepresented evidence during closing argument. Petitioner
further asserts that she is entitled to relief based on cumulative error. Following a thorough
review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Jaselyn Grant v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01453-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft

The petitioner, Jaselyn Grant, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief,
which petition challenged her convictions of second degree murder, reckless
endangerment, and aggravated assault, alleging that she was deprived of effective
assistance of counsel at trial. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that she is
entitled to post-conviction relief, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky Anderson
W2022-00452-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Glenn Ivy Wright

Defendant, Ricky Anderson, appeals his Shelby County convictions for two counts of first
degree premeditated murder, for which he received concurrent life sentences. Defendant
contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and
that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs of one of the deceased
victims. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In Re Klowii W., Et Al.
E2022-01789-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney, C.J.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy E. Irwin

This is a parental rights termination case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s
Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile
Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Trent W. (“Father”) to his minor children
Klowii W. and Mariah W. (collectively, “the Children”). After a hearing, the Juvenile
Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Children. The Juvenile
Court found by clear and convincing evidence that DCS had proven the grounds of
abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the
permanency plans, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness
to assume custody. The Juvenile Court also found by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals,
arguing that DCS failed to prove either grounds or best interest. We find that all four
grounds found by the Juvenile Court were proven by the requisite clear and convincing
evidence. We further find by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that
termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm.

WELFT, LLC v. Larry Elrod Et Al.
M2024-00489-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. B. Cox

This appeal arises out of a dispute over commercial real property. The appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Because the appellants did not file their notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, we dismiss the appeal.

Sarah Berl v. Thomas Berl
M2023-00558-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Deanna B. Johnson

This appeal stems from a post-divorce custody modification in which the father sought increased parenting time with his minor daughter, I.B. The trial court agreed with the father that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that a modification of the father’s parenting time was warranted. The trial court also awarded the father $15,000.00, or roughly half, of his attorney’s fees incurred in the trial court proceedings. The mother appeals the trial court’s decision. Because the father was, for the most part, the prevailing party at trial and proceeded in good faith, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father a portion of his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to attorney’s fees. However, we vacate the portion of the trial court’s final judgment placing a price cap on the minor child’s therapy fees. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified. Finally, we decline to award either party their attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

ROAR NORMANN RONNING v. LESLEY ANNE RONNING
E2024-00437-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John D. McAfee

This appeal concerns divorce related issues including property division, alimony, and child custody. Roar Normann Ronning (“Father”) sued Lesley Anne Ronning (“Mother”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Claiborne County (“the Trial Court”). The parties have a minor daughter, Freya (“the Child”). Over the course of multiple hearings, the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce and ultimately approved a parenting plan whereby Mother was named primary residential parent and received more parenting time with the Child than Father. One of the relevant factors in the child custody determination was Father’s career as a commercial airline pilot, which means he has a varied schedule. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the Trial Court erred in designating Mother primary residential parent, granting Mother more time with the Child than Father, and granting Mother major decision-making authority. Mother raises separate issues, including whether this appeal is frivolous. We find, inter alia, that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in making its custody determination. We find no reversible error in the Trial Court’s judgment. Mother’s separate issues are without merit. We affirm.

IN RE ESTATE OF NANN-ALIX WICKWIRE-MAGRILL
E2024-00934-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Eddie Lauderback

The trial court dismissed a will contest based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-12-119(c). Plaintiff appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Pruett Enterprises, Inc., v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance, Co.
03A01-9609-CH-00309
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples

This non-jury case involves the interpretation of a commercial insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford) to Pruett Enterprises, Inc. (Pruett). Pruett, the owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in Hamilton County, sued Hartford under the policy for “spoilage losses to various perishable items [caused] when electrical power to [two of Pruett’s] grocery stores was interrupted as a result of a heavy snow blizzard [on or about March 13, 1993].” Each of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Based upon the parties’ stipulation of facts, the trial court granted Hartford partial summary judgment, finding that the loss at 6925 Middle Valley Road, Hixson (“Middle Valley Store”) was not covered by the policy. As to the loss at Pruett’s store at 3936 Ringgold Road, East Ridge (“Ringgold Road Store”), the trial court found a genuine issue of fact and denied Hartford’s motion.