APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The majority has determined that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed her a duty and that the plaintiff was responsible for no less that 50% of her own injuries. I respectfully disagree.

This case involves a claim for negligence brought by Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant filed a claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration, which was subsequently transferred to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Commission determined the claim was time barred, and Appellant appealed this decision to this Court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
 

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order, which increases Appellant/Father’s child support obligation to an amount consistent with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to consider his extensive visitation with the child in declining to deviate downward from the guidelines. We affirm.

This case involves two Rule 12.02(6) motions to dismiss converted to motions for summary judgment through the filing of additional affidavits with Plaintiff’s response to these motions. Although the trial court dismissed all claims against Defendants for failure to state a claim under Rule 12.02(6), we must review the evidence using a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment standard. Plaintiff alleged numerous business torts, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation in this action against Defendants. However, Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence from which a jury could return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on any count alleged. The trial court also granted Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, but on summary judgment grounds.

This appeal involves an order of protection. After several public confrontations with his former girlfriend, the petitioner sought an order of protection from the Chancery Court for Sumner County. The trial court granted the order of protection, and the former girlfriend appealed to this court. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision, we affirm.

The Appellant, Timerell Nelson, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of first degree felony murder. On appeal, Nelson raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we find the evidence to be more than sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

The petitioner, Matthew L. Moates, appeals the Monroe County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery and resulting sixteen-year sentence. He claims (1) that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to call witnesses to testify at trial about the length of his hair at the time of the robbery, (2) that the state improperly struck an African-American juror from the jury, (3) that he is entitled to a new trial because he was not present during a conference in which the state and his trial attorney discussed the African-American juror's dismissal, and (4) that a state witness improperly communicated with a juror during his trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

While I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Demers’s claims in this case, I write separately to point out that the outcome may very well have been different had we employed the standard customarily used to review orders granting a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss. However, by using affidavits to oppose the motion to dismiss, Mr. Demers has succeeded in converting the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to a motion for summary  Thus, rather than reviewing Mr. Demers’s amended complaint to determine whether it states claims upon which relief can be granted, we need only determine whether, based on the undisputed facts, the defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

This appeal involves the juvenile court's termination of parental rights to two children, A.L.B. (d.o.b. 10/25/96), and B.L.B. (d.o.b. 12/01/98). Appellant argues that the trial court's findings regarding abandonment of the children, persistent conditions, and the children's best interests are unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Anthony Lebron Carter, appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal an unsuccessful plaintiff seeks review of a jury verdict approved by the trial court, in favor of the defendant manufacturer. We affirm.

The Appellant, Darrell Sanderlin, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Haywood County Circuit Court. Sanderlin pled guilty to one count of child abuse of his six-year-old son, a class D felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years incarceration. On appeal, Sanderlin argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed.

The plaintiffs bring this appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

This case involves the death of a passenger who was involved in a high speed police chase. The Tennessee Claims Commission granted summary judgment to the State and passenger's personal representative appealed, primarily on the ground that the Claims Commission erred in granting summary judgment prior to an opportunity to take the discovery deposition of the involved highway patrolman. We affirm.

The defendant, Herbert Russell Johnson, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider further alternatives to incarceration before revoking his probation and ordering the reinstatement of his original sentence. Because the record reveals there was substantial evidence in support of the trial court's decision, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court awarded plaintiff judgment for rents on property occupied by defendants, but refused judgment for defendants for improvements made by them to plaintiff's property. On appeal, we reverse and award defendants judgment for improvements made to the property and modify plaintiff's judgment for the rental value of land.

Former employee of Nissan North America, Inc. filed this action against Nissan alleging retaliatory discharge following his filing of a workers' compensation claim. A discovery dispute ensued wherein Nissan objected claiming the requests were not relevant and that it would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act if it provided the discovery. The trial court modified the discovery and ordered Nissan to: 1) list every employee terminated between August 2000 and January 2002 and the reason for the termination; 2) identify which of these employees filed workers' compensation claims or received workers' compensation benefits within one year preceding their respective termination; and 3) identify each employee that Nissan or its agents either conducted surveillance on or requested that surveillance be conducted on between August 2000 and January 2002. We reverse, finding that the plaintiff failed to make a compelling showing of relevance and failed to establish that the value of the discovery sought, which pertained to information contained in the personnel and medical records of current and former employees of Nissan, outweighed the privacy interests of those individuals who were not parties to this action.

The defendant, Daniel Wade Wilson, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Sullivan County Criminal Court for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of life in prison for the first degree felony murder conviction and twenty-three years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of felony murder or especially aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of cashier's check on theory of bailment or resulting or constructive trust. From an adverse Judgment by the Chancellor, plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

The Defendant, Brian Keith Jackson, was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. In this direct appeal, he argues (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to play a pornographic video tape for the jury after it was admitted into evidence, and (2) that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although the trial court did err by not playing the video in front of the jury, the error was harmless. Furthermore, because the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Employee was discharged from employment for refusing to follow orders. The Commissioner denied employee unemployment benefits, and employee appealed to the Court which affirmed the ruling of the Commissioner. On appeal to this Court, we affirm.

The Appellant, Ronald Killebrew, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun, a class E felony, following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Killebrew, as a Range II multiple offender, to three years and six months in the Shelby County Workhouse. On appeal, Killebrew raises the single issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction.

In 1985, Petitioner, Sedley Alley, was convicted of the crimes of aggravated rape, kidnapping, and first degree murder. The jury fixed his punishment at death for first degree murder and the trial court imposed consecutive forty-year sentences for kidnapping and aggravated rape. Petitioner Alley filed a petition to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and Petitioner Alley timely appealed. This Court expedited review of this matter. Upon review of the record and the responses by both parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.