APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit in circuit court against the University of Tennessee (at Martin), alleging twelve separate counts relating to the University’s handling of a charitable gift made by the plaintiff. The claims ranged from breach of contract to defamation to infliction of emotional distress, among others.The circuit court granted the University’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Tennessee Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over suits against the Statefor the torts alleged by the plaintiff and any breach of contract claim. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

In protracted litigation concerning a dispute over church property, a new chancellor took office several years after a jury verdict, post-trial motions, and an order granting partial summary judgment. The new chancellor set aside the jury verdict and the summary judgment order. We have determined that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict and in setting aside the order granting partial summary judgment.Therefore, we reverse and remand.

The Tennessee Department of Revenue issued a business tax assessment against a companybased on the company’s gross receipts from sales of computer software, cloud hosting, and cloud-based services.The company challenged the assessment by filing a complaint in the chancery court. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted summaryjudgmentto the company, finding that the sales of computer software and cloud hosting were not subject to business tax. The court upheld the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s assessment of business tax against the company’s sales of cloud-based services. Lastly, the courtfound that the company was the prevailing party and awarded the company attorney’s fees pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1803(d). The Tennessee Department of Revenue appealed. Discerning that the court erred in its determination that the company’s cloud hosting sales were not subject to business tax, we reverse that portion of the court’s decision. Because this affects the attorney’s fees award, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

This is an interlocutory appeal, filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, from a clerk and master’s denial of a motion to recuse. Finding that the appeal of the clerk and master’s ruling should have gone to the Chancellor, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellant was named conservator over her mother in 2019 over her sibling’s objection and posted a $25,000.00 surety bond in connection with the conservatorship. After several years in which accountings were approved by the trial court, a new judge was designated to preside over the case. The new trial judge refused to approve several of the expenses in the later accountings, finding that they were either not for the benefit of the ward or constituted payment to the conservator without prior court approval. As a result, the trial court ruled that the conservator was required to reimburse over $30,000.00 in expenses to the conservatorship account. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that these expenses were unauthorized and directing reimbursement, as well as in granting a judgment to the conservator’s surety for the amount it paid to reimburse the conservatorship account pursuant to the surety bond. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this matter involving alleged violations of federal and state wiretapping statutes,
evidence was presented to a jury during a two-day trial. Following the conclusion of the
trial, the jury deliberated and ultimately found in favor of the defendant. The trial court
entered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court denied the
motion, and the plaintiffs timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Plaintiff/Appellant has filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, Section 2, seeking review of the Davidson County General Sessions Court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to recuse the General Sessions judge in a civil warrant proceeding against Defendant/Appellee.  We conclude this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 10B appeal from the General Sessions Court of Davidson County when it is not exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a court of record.  Accordingly, this appeal is transferred to the Circuit Court of Davidson County for disposition.

After an extended trial, the court adopted a permanent parenting plan for the child of unwed parents and determined the father’s child support obligation.  Mother takes issue with both decisions.  Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

Inthis case involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child, the Shelby County Chancery Court (“trial court”) determined that one statutory ground for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Appellees, finding that Appellant’s own inattention was the cause of her accident and that she was more than 50% at fault for her injuries.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a defective petition for writ of certiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the Appellee’s motion to dismiss after Appellant failed to verify and notarize the petition under the requirements set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02.  Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B§ 1.01, the appeal is dismissed.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s modification of a residential schedule in which the
trial court awarded the parents equal co-parenting time. We now affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing
evidence to terminate father’s parental rights to the minor child on three statutory
grounds: abandonment by failure to support, father’s confinement as the result of a criminal
sentence of ten or more years when the child was under eight years old, and father’s failure
to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody of
the child. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest.
We vacate the trial court’s finding as to father’s failure to manifest an ability and
willingness to assume custody of the child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all
other respects.

This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action concerning the rezoning of property
by the Jefferson City Council. The trial court affirmed the rezoning. We now affirm the
ruling of the trial court.

The appeal concerns the scope and enforceability of a liability waiver.  The trial court determined the liability waiver applied to the plaintiff’s claims of personal injury and granted the defendant summary judgment.  We agree and affirm

The mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to impose sanctions against her for failing
to produce documents in response to the father’s repeated discovery requests. She also
challenges the amount of the award of attorney’s fees. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce.  The parties were married over twenty years and had three children.  The mother was a stay-at-home parent while Father was employed. At trial, they stipulated to separate parenting schedules for their two teenagers but could not agree on a parenting schedule for their youngest daughter, a former foster child they had adopted years earlier.  The trial court designated the father primary residential parent of the youngest daughter and adopted a parenting schedule with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly basis.  The trial court denied the mother’s request for alimony in futuro and awarded her transitional alimony for a period of five months.  The trial court ordered the father to pay $6,000 of the mother’s attorney fees, but each party was deemed responsible for the remainder of his or her own attorney fees.  The mother appeals.  We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Worker employed by a temporary staffing agency was assigned to one of the agency’s clients and then injured while working. In suing the client for negligence, the worker relied on the contract between agency and client that provided that such assignees would not be considered employees of the client. The trial court granted summary judgment for the client, finding that the worker was a co-employee of the client and thus subject to the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law. Because the worker admitted all of the facts establishing his status as an employee of the client by failing to dispute them, we affirm.

The plaintiffs sued various state officials to enjoin the deployment of Tennessee National Guard troops in support of the President’s Memphis Safe Task Force. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, and the state defendants filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 motion seeking permission to appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. Finding that the plaintiffs lack standing, we reverse the issuance of the injunction.

This case involves a petition for rescission of a mortgage loan based on fraud in the
inducement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on two separate
grounds. The first basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was that the
plaintiff sought rescission of the loan transaction but admitted that he could not repay the
amount he received in the transaction and also admitted that he could not restore the status
quo if the note and deed of trust were rescinded. Because the plaintiff was unable to place
the parties in their prior status, the trial court found that he was not entitled to rescission.
Next, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to identify any misrepresentation made
by the original lender and only alleged misrepresentation by the mortgage broker, who was
not a party to this lawsuit. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to present any
evidence or legal theory showing that the mortgage broker was acting as an agent of the
original lender, so his statements were not attributable to the defendants. The plaintiff
appeals. We affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the ground of persistent conditions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3).  Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support this ground and the trial court’s determination that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

In this probate action, the executor of the decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant, who was the decedent’s wife, had exercised undue influence over the decedent.  Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding that the defendant did not have a confidential relationship with the decedent.  The plaintiff has appealed.  Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.                                                                

This is an appeal from a final order entered on December 10, 2025. The notice of appeal
was electronically filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals on January 14, 2026, more
than thirty days from the date of entry of the orders 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.

Unhappy with a planning commission’s approval of a subdivision concept plan, a not-forprofit
corporation and an adjoining property owner petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The
court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It concluded that the
commission’s approval of a concept plan was not final for purposes of judicial review. We
agree that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction albeit on a different basis.