Leonard Blackstock v. State of Tennessee
This appeal concerns an order of dismissal entered by the Tennessee Claims Commission. Though Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, this Court is unable to review any of the issues due to Appellant’s noncompliance with applicable appellate briefing requirements. Because all of Appellant’s issues on appeal have been waived due to his failure to comply with the appellate briefing requirements, we affirm the judgment of the Tennessee Claims Commission. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robin M. McNabb v. Gregory Harrison
This case involves an election contest filed by the plaintiff based on the defendant’s residency eligibility for the office of Lenoir City Municipal Court Judge. Following a hearing, the trial court determined that the defendant had complied with article VI, section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution because the clause required, inter alia, that he be a resident within the judicial district, not necessarily within the city limits, to preside over the municipal court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with a general sessions court. The |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Willie Nathan Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Nathan Jones, appeals from the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. Petitioner argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to contemporaneously object to the prosecutor’s closing argument and failing to object to the prosecutor’s use of the term “victim” when referring to a State’s witness. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nathan A. Wallace v. Blake Ballin ET AL.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Booker v. James Michael Booker
This is an appeal from a divorce in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (the “trial court”). Donna Booker (“Wife”) and Mike Booker (“Husband”) married for the first time in 1993 and divorced in 1998. They remarried shortly thereafter in February of 1999. The day of their second wedding, Husband and Wife executed a prenuptial agreement addressing Husband’s interest in his family’s steel erection business. Wife filed the current divorce action in the trial court in February of 2020, and a trial was held May 3 and 4, 2022, and July 6, 2022. The trial court ordered the parties divorced, divided the marital estate, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro. Finding that the prenuptial agreement was valid, the trial court determined that Husband’s interest in his family business was separate property. Wife appeals. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jody Higgins v. Corecivic, Inc. Et Al.
This appeal concerns an inmate’s lawsuit over injuries he sustained from falling off a top |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jason M. Peterson v. Jodi L. Carey
Jason M. Peterson (“Plaintiff”) was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Jodi L. Carey |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Aaliyah P.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support; 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 of the children. The mother also appeals the trial court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We reverse the trial court’s finding on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans because the initial permanency plan does not appear in the record, but we affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John H. Packard, IV v. Jonathan R. Bentley Et Al.
The plaintiff, John H. Packard, IV (“Plaintiff”) was struck by a vehicle driven by Jonathan |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Dewayne Richards
Defendant, Jimmy Dewayne Richards, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of burglary, theft of property, and vandalism. On appeal, the Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress. We cannot adequately review on the record before us whether the search was supported by probable cause or whether Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. The trial court sua sponte raised the standing issue after all the proof was presented at the hearing and did not comply with its duties to judge the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the evidence, and to resolve factual issues in deciding the motion to suppress. We therefore remand this case for a new hearing on the motion to suppress in accordance with the instructions in this opinion. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dustin Balch v. Brittanie Cilley
A mother appeals from the judgment holding her in criminal contempt of court, denying her motion to dissolve an ex parte no-contact order entered against her, and denying her motion to transfer the case to another county. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment. Due to the passage of time and the position taken by the parties and by the trial court when issuing its ruling, we remand for a new evidentiary hearing on the ex parte order suspending the mother’s contact with the children. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Quintavious Montez Patton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Quintavious Montez Patton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney Anderson v. State of Tennessee
This is a State appeal, filed by the State Attorney General and Reporter, from the entry of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Peat
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Frederick Peat, of aggravated rape, for |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan De Paz Mondragon
The defendant, Juan De Paz Mondragon, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Dewayne Milton
The defendant, Eric Dewayne Milton, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chauncy Black
The defendant, Chauncy Black, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of reckless |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Taylor Brent Farley
Defendant, Taylor Brent Farley, pleaded guilty to one count of attempted delivery of fentanyl, a Class C felony. Defendant sought judicial diversion, but the trial court denied diversion and imposed a six-year sentence on Community Corrections. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Dean v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Edward Dean, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond D. Barnes, Jr. v. Marion L. Barnes
After a long-term marriage, the parties divorced. The trial court, which found the husband’s testimony not to be credible, set the value of the marital property, divided the marital property, and awarded alimony in futuro to the wife. The husband appeals, challenging the credibility finding, the trial court’s valuation of the marital property, the division of property, and the alimony award. We affirm the trial court’s valuation and distribution of the marital property, but we vacate the trial court’s alimony award, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Will Vaughn
The defendant, Will Vaughn, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pratik Pandharipande, M.D. v. FSD Corporation
This case arises from a dispute between a property owner and his homeowners’ association. The property owner, Pratik Pandharipande, purchased a home in a vacation community on a Tennessee lake, intending to use it as a short-term rental. At the time of the purchase, the property was subject to covenants requiring that the home be used for “residential and no other purposes.” The covenants were amended several years later to allow leases with minimum lease terms of thirty days. Pandharipande contends that neither the original covenants nor the amendments prohibit him from leasing his property for short terms of two to twenty-eight days. His homeowners’ association disagrees on both scores. We agree with Pandharipande that the original covenants requiring residential use of the property do not bar his short-term rentals, but we agree with the homeowners’ association that the amendments do. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners’ association based on both the original covenants and the amendments. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We affirm the Court of Appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
DeKalb | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Cedric D. Marshall, alias Edward Depriest
The defendant, Cedric D. Marshall, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and resentencing him to an effective sentence of seven years’ incarceration for his guilty-pleaded convictions of evading arrest, burglary, and theft of property. Because the defendant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorie Ann Gerbis
The Defendant, Lorie Ann Gerbis, was convicted following a bench trial of two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Specifically, she contends that the State’s evidence was inadequate to establish her identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victericka Gilchrease v. State of Tennessee
The Pettioner, Victercika Gilchrease, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |