Mayor Lee Harris et al. v. Governor Bill Lee et al.
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. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Essie James, et al. v. Petra Finance, LLC, et al.
This case involves a petition for rescission of a mortgage loan based on fraud in the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re James K.
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. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Ronald C. Perry
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. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
STEVEN R. POWELL v. KNOXVILLE TVA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B by the defendant below, Steven R. Powell, regarding his motion for recusal of the chancellor. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal, we determine it to be fatally deficient. We therefore dismiss the appeal |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
ETHAN BLACKBURN v. ALEXIS COOPER-HILL
Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
EVA HAVLICEK ET AL. v. SEVIER COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, LLC ET AL.
Unhappy with a planning commission’s approval of a subdivision concept plan, a not-forprofit |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE AUDREY B.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on December 10, 2025. The notice of appeal |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Shervin Shahriari et al. v. Ikon Electric Services, Inc. et al.
A defendant appeals a judgment arising out of a dispute over residential electrical work. Because the defendant did not file his notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within thirty days after entry of the judgment as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by Samuel Forrester Hunter (“Father”) seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Father, and finding no error, we affirm the denial of the recusal motion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert-Henry Butts IV v. Jacob Berti
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right filed pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Due to numerous deficiencies in Appellant’s petition, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Alan Gordon v. Heather Elizabeth Gordon
Husband and Wife both sought a divorce, with each attributing fault to the other. During the divorce process, Wife alleged to the police, the Department of Children’s Services, and Husband’s military employer that Husband had abused her and their child. Husband denied the allegations and responded with a petition to hold Wife in criminal contempt for making false allegations of abuse. The contempt petition and the military investigation into Wife’s claims remained open at the time of Wife’s deposition. Wife refused, allegedly based on these open matters, to answer questions at her deposition, pleading the Fifth Amendment. The deposition was relocated to the courthouse, where the trial court held an impromptu hearing on the matter. During the hearing, the judge informed Wife that her refusal to answer questions could result in her being held in civil contempt. However, instead of holding Wife in civil contempt, with no warning, the trial court struck Wife’s pleadings and entered a default judgment. Addressing Husband’s pleadings and testimony thereupon, the trial court thereafter entered a final order dividing the parties’ property and fashioning a parenting plan. Wife appealed, arguing, among other things, that the sanctions of striking her pleadings and issuing a default judgment were improper. Because we conclude that Wife had insufficient notice, we vacate the trial court’s sanctions order and remand the case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Darrin Numbers et al. v. Robert Snyder et al.
The plaintiffs in this case are two individuals who transferred a substantial amount of money to a business. After the business failed to repay the plaintiffs, they filed a lawsuit against the business and its owner, alleging various wrongdoings and seeking to pierce the corporate veil of the business. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs had proven all of their claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages against both the business and its owner. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court failed to apply the proper test for piercing the corporate veil and failed to provide sufficient clarity in its damages award. We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Pirtle, in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Mark A. Pirtle, deceased v. John R. Howerton et al.
The plaintiff, in his capacity as the executor of the decedent’s estate, commenced this action for breach of a stock purchase agreement against the decedent’s former business partner and the business that they owned together. The agreement comprised two documents: one requiring an initial lump-sum payment of $1 million, and one requiring payment of “$8,000.00 per month for 96 months and two new automobiles with lease payments or purchase payments not to exceed $1,500.00 per month for 96 months.” The decedent also signed a handwritten note in which he agreed to forgive “all debts” if the former business partner honored “all agreements for 1 (one) year after [the decedent’s] death.” The plaintiff later moved for summary judgment based on evidence that the defendants made only 17 monthly cash payments and only 114 of the vehicle payments. In response, the defendants asserted that they made a lump sum payment of $40,000 “in full satisfaction of the debt” before the decedent’s death. The defendants also argued that the debt was forgiven pursuant to the handwritten note. Regardless, the defendants maintained that there was no evidence of missed payments. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding it undisputed that the defendants made only 17 payments. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees and costs under a “Hold Harmless and Indemnity” clause in the purchase agreement. But the court found a dispute of material fact on whether the defendants breached their obligation to make all car payments. At trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict due to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to prove damages. The trial court granted the motion because there was no evidence that the defendants missed any car payments. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment in all respects except for the award of attorney’s fees, which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the contract. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston County, Tennessee
This appeal follows our remand in Acute Care Holdings, LLC v. Houston Cnty., No. M2018-01534-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 2337434 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2019) (hereinafter “Acute Care I”). The dispute involves the alleged breach by Houston County of a Letter of Intent pertaining to the purchase of a hospital in Erin, Tennessee. On remand, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Acute Care Holdings, LLC (“Acute Care”), by granting its motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that Houston County breached the Letter of Intent. Thereafter, the trial court entered an Agreed Final Judgment awarding Acute Care a judgment of $1,218,062.63 and prejudgment interest of $730,036.65. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kansas B. et al.
The appellant is a physician assistant accused by the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) of sexually abusing a stepchild. After one appeal of the dependency and neglect case, the appellant and DCS entered into an agreed order to resolve the matter. According to the appellant, he did not stipulate in the agreed order that he engaged in the alleged misconduct. In a related criminal case, the appellant was indicted by a grand jury and ultimately entered a no contest plea. He did not admit guilt, no conviction was entered, and all charges will be dismissed and expunged if he completes his probation. The Tennessee Department of Health (“DOH” or “the Department”) informed the appellant that it had opened a case against him before the Board of Physician Assistants regarding his fitness to practice “due to the allegations in the [dependency and neglect] matter.” The Department sought certain records from the juvenile court case, and the appellant opposed it. The trial court granted the Department’s motion, and the appellant appealed. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Batiste, et al. v. The Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment, et al.
The president of a homeowner’s association filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by a local zoning board. The chancery court dismissed the petition, finding that the petition was insufficiently verified. After review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Kisana v. Isaac Caldiero
The appellant, Isaac Caldiero (“Appellant”), filed a notice of appeal with this Court in September 2025, which states that Appellant is appealing the August 8, 2025 order of the Hamilton County Circuit Court (“the Trial Court”). Upon receiving the appellate record in this appeal, this Court reviewed the record on appeal to determine if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(b). |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.
This appeal concerns an unsuccessful business relationship between two companies. Signal Pump, LLC (“Signal”), a company that builds LED light towers, contracted with Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”), a major supplier of electronics components, for Arrow to become Signal’s exclusive supplier. The relationship broke down as Arrow failed to timely supply Signal with parts and Signal failed to pay Arrow. Signal sued Arrow in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud. New York substantive law governed this lawsuit as provided for by the parties’ agreement. Arrow filed a counterclaim against Signal for breach of contract based on Signal’s alleged failure to fully compensate Arrow for its products and services. According to Signal, Arrow’s failure to timely supply parts per the agreement cost Signal massive losses in profits it otherwise would have earned. Arrow, in turn, has asserted throughout that Signal continually changed its requests for parts. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found that both parties breached the agreement. The Trial Court awarded Arrow damages for Signal’s failure to pay. However, the Trial Court declined to award Signal any damages for lost profits, citing a liability limitation clause in the parties’ agreement. Signal appeals. We hold that the liability limitation clause is an exculpatory clause. We modify the Trial Court’s judgment in that respect. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Stanley H. Trezevant, et al. v. Collierville Auto Center, Inc.
At the conclusion of proof in a bench trial in a breach of lease action, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that both plaintiffs lacked standing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the individual plaintiff’s lack of standing rendered his claim moot but vacate the trial court’s decision regarding the plaintiff company. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen
The trial court denied Husband’s timely motion to alter or amend a divorce decree involving child custody, child support, and the distribution of military retirement benefits. Several days later, the trial court entered a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the former order, but within thirty days of the latter order. Because we determine that the time for filing an appeal from the order denying Husband’s motion was not affected by the entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
James William Rose et al. v. Patrick M. Malone
In this grandparent visitation action, the grandparents filed a contempt petition, alleging that the child’s father had violated provisions of a previously entered visitation order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered an oral ruling and found the father in contempt. Before the trial court’s entry of a written order regarding contempt, however, the father filed a motion seeking the trial court judge’s recusal. The trial court entered orders adjudicating the contempt charges and the father’s bond before entering a written order adjudicating the recusal issue. The trial court then entered orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. The father has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court erred by entering further orders before entering an order adjudicating the recusal motion. We therefore vacate the trial court’s August 2023 bond orders and the August 2023 order regarding the second contempt petition, which were entered while the motion to recuse was pending. We reverse the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
CHARLES EDWARD COPELAND ET AL. v. SCG IV-KARCH’S CROSSING, LLC
This is an appeal from a premises liability, slip-and-fall claim against the owner of a shopping center. The husband slipped and fell while trying to get into his vehicle at a shopping center owned by the defendant company. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Patrick Michael Wallen v. LC Germantown Owner, LLC
Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |
