Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Linda Linkous Et Al.
The trial court held that an insurance company properly denied an insured’s claim for property loss arising out of a fire. The trial court found that the denial was supported by two grounds: (1) that the property was not “occupied” as defined by the policy at the time of the fire and, therefore, the policy did not cover the loss, and (2) that the policy was voided by the insured’s misrepresentations relating to the loss. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Joshua M. Harman Qui Tam v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Et Al.
A qui tam relator brought a Tennessee False Claims Act suit on behalf of himself and the State of Tennessee against a manufacturer of guardrail end terminals. The manufacturer moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion on a wide variety of bases. The qui tam relator appeals. We conclude that a number of the rationales relied upon by the trial court were in error; nevertheless, the trial court properly dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Tennessee False Claims Act. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Clark Ritenour v. Sara D. Bennett
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 9, 2023. The Notice of Appeal was |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Philip Hyer v. Juanita Miller
After flooding washed away a bridge and part of a driveway which a homeowner used to |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
John F. Curran v. Angela M. Melson
Appellant and Appellee were involved in a romantic relationship during which time |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Robert McPhail Hunt Jr.
This appeal arises out of a settlement agreement between the parties that resolved the |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Smith v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee
This appeal concerns a claim of retaliatory discharge. Heather Smith (“Smith”), then an |
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Willie Harold Hargett et al. v. Charlotte R. Hodges Brown
A decedent’s estate sued his girlfriend for the proceeds of his life insurance policy, items from his home that were missing or damaged, and money withdrawn from his credit union account. The trial court found for the estate on the basis of fraud, conversion, and undue influence. The girlfriend appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Infinity Homes, Inc. et al. v. Horizon Land Title, Inc. et al.
Appellants, purchasers of several unimproved lots, filed suit against Appellee title company. Appellants asserted five counts against Appellee based on Appellee’s alleged failure to disclose the existence of a lien lis pendens on the lots. The trial court dismissed all but one of the counts against Appellee and certified its orders of partial dismissal as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its orders as final and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Lynne Ingram Bolton v. David Bolton
This is a criminal contempt case. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s finding that he is guilty of four counts of criminal contempt for violating the trial court’s orders regarding medical treatment for the minor child. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Vondell Richmond v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee
This case involves a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the plaintiff, then a member of the Clarksville City Council, was entitled to a declaration of rights concerning alleged communications between the Clarksville City Attorney and the local District Attorney General potentially pertaining to plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiff was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion because there was no justiciable controversy. Having reviewed the record, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kristie M. Haun v. Jason B. Haun Et Al.
This is an appeal regarding the final decree of divorce for this couple. The husband’s inlaws |
Court of Appeals | ||
Heidi Pendas v. Christopher J. Irizarry et al.
This case involves an intrafamily dispute over a home and the alleged indebtedness thereon. The trial court found that the son committed promissory fraud with regard to the conveyance of the home and awarded the mother $180,000.00 in damages as the value of the home at the time of the conveyance. The trial court further dismissed a claim against the daughter related to a loan on the property. Both the son and the mother appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Maryam Sobhi (Soryana) Mikhail v. George Aziz Mikhail
A wife sought a divorce after a long-term marriage. The trial court granted the wife a default judgment for divorce as a sanction for the husband’s discovery abuses. After a trial, the court also valued and divided the marital estate and awarded the wife alimony in futuro. On appeal, the husband challenges the court’s decisions on multiple grounds. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
John Jahen v. Aer Express, Inc. Et Al.
An injured truck driver brought suit against his alleged employer seeking to recover worker’s compensation benefits. The alleged employer did not appear at trial, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Eight months later, the alleged employer moved the trial court to set aside the judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, on the grounds that it did not receive notice of the trial date. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the alleged employer failed to notify the court and the plaintiff of its change of address and that plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the court set aside the judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Michael R. Adams v. Edwin Brittenum ET AL.
A pro se petitioner seeks accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying a motion for |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Patton Et Al. v. Anita Pearson
After a fire at a rental home, suit was brought against the tenant. During discovery, the tenant sought admissions related to the landlords’ insurance coverage and as to whether the suit was actually a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured. As a result of resistance to disclosure, the tenant moved to compel. The trial court granted the motion. Following admissions indicating that this suit is a subrogation action by the insurer brought in the names of the insured, the tenant moved for summary judgment asserting that under the Sutton Rule she is an implied co-insured under the landlords’ insurance policy. Opposition to summary judgment was advanced based upon the purported inapplicability of the Sutton Rule and the purported applicability of the collateral source rule. The trial court granted summary judgment to the tenant. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel and summary judgment in favor of the tenant. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lyon Roofing, Inc. et al. v. James H. Griffith, Jr. et al.
This appeal involves the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion. In the original action, |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Builders, Inc. v. CKF Excavating, LLC
An arbitrator awarded a subcontractor damages against a general contractor. In chancery court, the general contractor moved to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The chancery court denied the motion to vacate and, at the request of the subcontractor, confirmed the arbitration award. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Builders, Inc. v. CKF Excavating, LLC
I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding that the doctrine of prior suit pending is inapplicable here. The majority's discussion of prior suit pending is contained in footnote one of its opinion. Therein, the majority notes that the Rogers Group commenced an action (the "Cheatham County case") in Cheatham County against CKF Excavating and TBI. However, the majority omits the fact that TBI filed a cross-claim against CKF in the Cheatham County case. For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that TBI's cross-claim triggered the doctrine of prior suit pending and vested jurisdiction in the Cheatham County court. As such, the Davidson County court did not have authority to conduct a review of the arbitrator's decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue Et Al.
Citizens of Tennessee may apply to the Tennessee Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for license plates featuring unique, personalized messages. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-210(d)(2) provides that “[t]he commissioner shall refuse to issue any combination of letters, numbers or positions that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency or that are misleading.” After her personalized plate featuring the message “69PWNDU” was revoked by the Department, Leah Gilliam (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against David Gerregano (the “Commissioner”), commissioner of the Department, as well as the then-Attorney General and Reporter. Plaintiff alleged various constitutional violations including violations of her First Amendment right to Free Speech. The Department and the State of Tennessee (together, the “State”) responded, asserting, inter alia, that the First Amendment does not apply to personalized plate configurations because they are government speech. The lower court, a special three judge panel sitting in Davidson County, agreed with the State. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse, holding that the personalized alphanumeric configurations on vanity license plates are private, not government, speech. We affirm, however, the panel’s decision not to assess discovery sanctions against the State. Plaintiff’s other constitutional claims are pretermitted and must be evaluated on remand because the panel did not consider any issues other than government speech. This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Duane Dominy Et Al. v. Davidson County Election Commission
Plaintiffs brought an action against the Davidson County Election Commission, asserting that the Election Commission violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act and Metro Code 2.68.020. The chancery court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Election Commission, concluding no violation occurred and that even if there had been a violation it was cured by a subsequent public meeting. Plaintiffs appealed. Defending the chancery court’s judgment, the Election Commission argues that the trial court’s ruling was correct on the merits and that the Plaintiffs are also not entitled to relief because they lack standing and because the matter has become moot. Because the Election Commission presented a well-developed and well-supported argument in favor of mootness and because the Plaintiffs have failed to respond to that argument, we conclude that opposition to the Election Commission’s mootness argument has been waived. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Noah B. Et Al.
A mother appeals the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Aaron Solomon v. Angelia Solomon et al.
Plaintiff sued several defendants over social media posts and the unauthorized use of his and his child’s name, image, and likeness. Plaintiff requested both damages and injunctive relief. In response, defendants petitioned to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Plaintiff then filed notice of a voluntary nonsuit, which defendants opposed. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. Because we conclude that nothing in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 precludes the voluntary dismissal, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Kristopher McMickens v. Vincent J. Perryman, as Administrator of the Estate of Alfred G. Farmer
The plaintiff filed this personal injury action following an automobile accident in which |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |
