COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Kristopher Roberts
W2001-01702-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

This case involves a juvenile's appeal from an adjudication of delinquency. The jury found that the juvenile was guilty of disorderly conduct as a result of his actions at the Tipton County School Board building. The jury also found the juvenile guilty of assault and resisting arrest due to his actions in the Juvenile Court of Tipton County. We affirm the jury's verdict.

Tipton Court of Appeals

Quentin Cavnar v. State
M2002-00609-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
This appeal involves the diagnosis and treatment of a person who was briefly hospitalized at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute. Following his release, the patient filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that he had been misdiagnosed and that the staff had subjected him to mental abuse and torture. The Commission dismissed the patient's complaint after he failed to file a timely response to the State's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, and the patient has appealed. We have determined that the Commission properly dismissed the patient's claim, not only because of his tardy response but also because the response fails to state a claim upon which the Commission may grant relief.

Court of Appeals

Jeffrey Simmons v. Gath Baptist Church
M2001-02511-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
A man arrested for child sexual abuse brought an action against the church he once worked for, as well as against the Department of Children's Services and other governmental agencies, claiming that his arrest was procured by illegal or unconstitutional means. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and the passing of the Statute of Limitations. The court further held that the defendant governmental entities were immune from civil liability. We affirm.

Warren Court of Appeals

Rocky Hitson v. Dept. of Correction
M2001-02903-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding a disciplinary hearing held at the Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City. The prisoner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County alleging that he had been substantially prejudiced by the Department's failure to follow its disciplinary rules. The trial court, relying on Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), granted the Department's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion and dismissed the petition. The petitioner has appealed. We have determined that the trial court's order should be vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Willis v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2003 WL 22019138 (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2003).

Davidson Court of Appeals

Randy Hensley v. Dept of Correction
M2001-02343-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

Randy Hensley v. Dept of Correction
M2001-02343-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Davidson Court of Appeals

Andre Mayfield v. Ricky Bell
M2001-00486-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Appellant, a pro se inmate in the Department of Corrections, appeals the dismissal by the chancellor of his case pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812. We affirm the action of the chancellor.

Davidson Court of Appeals

America Online v. Commissioner of Revenue
M2001-00927-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to America Online, Inc. on the Commissioner of Revenue's claim that AOL's activities in this state gave it a sufficient nexus to subject it to state taxes. Because we find that this question is fact-specific and that the record does not show that AOL is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, we reverse.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Barton Hawkins v. Dept of Correction
M2001-00473-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed the underlying pro se petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding against him. The trial court dismissed the suit sua sponte for improper venue. Because the legislature has localized venue for actions brought by inmates to the county where the prison facility is located, we affirm the decision of the trial court, but remand for transfer to the appropriate trial court.

Davidson Court of Appeals

David Crockett v. Rutherford County
M2000-01405-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
4899". The Chancery Court of Rutherford County found that the rezoning had "elements" of arbitrariness and capriciousness and amounted to spot zoning; nonetheless, the Court deferred to the Rutherford County Commission, upheld the zoning change, and dismissed the Plaintiff's lawsuit. The issues presented for appeal are whether the Chancellor erred as a matter of law by granting deference to the Rutherford County Commission on the zoning issue in spite of the Court's factual findings in favor of Plaintiff, and whether the Trial Court erred in finding that the zoning amendment did not violate the Establishment Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Rutherford Court of Appeals

James E. Johnson v. Bd. of Medical Examiners
M2002-00048-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This case involves the revocation of a physician's medical license. A patient saw a physician regarding a chronic skin condition. A series of unorthodox treatment methods resulted in the patient having upper respiratory problems, pain, dizziness, blurred vision, a small stroke, infection, and an abscess that had to be surgically drained and removed. As a result, the Tennessee Department of Health filed charges against the physician. After an administrative hearing, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners found that the physician engaged in unprofessional and unethical conduct, committed acts of gross malpractice, and demonstrated a pattern of incompetence and ignorance in the course of medical practice. The Board revoked the physician's medical license and assessed civil penalties. The physician sought judicial review in the chancery court. The chancellor affirmed the civil penalties but reversed the Board's revocation of the physician's medical license. The Tennessee Department of Health and the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners appeal, arguing that the trial court substituted its judgment for the judgment of the Board. We reverse the ruling of the trial court, finding that the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners did not abuse its discretion, did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and that its revocation of the physician's medical license was supported by substantial and material evidence. Thus, we reinstate the Board's decision to revoke the physician's medical license.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Glenna Grissom vs. State
W2001-03021-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
This is a Claims Commission case that was dismissed for failure to prosecute. In July 2000, the claimant filed a lawsuit with the Tennessee Claims Commission against the State of Tennessee. The State filed its answer in October 2000. In September 2001, the State filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, relying on Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402(b), which provides for dismissal of a claim with the Claims Commission if the claimant does not take action to advance the claim for a one-year period, unless the claimant received prior written consent from the Commission. In November 2001, the Commission entered an order granting the State's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the claimant argues that the one-year period should be tolled pending a response to her complaint by the State. We affirm, finding that the statutory one-year period began to run when the claim was filed.

Court of Appeals

Brian Oakley et al. vs. State
W2002-00095-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
This appeal involves the decision of the Claims Commission to dismiss the claimants' case for failure to prosecute. The claimants filed suit against the State alleging "negligent care, custody, and control of persons" after their father was killed by a juvenile inmate at the John S. Wilder Youth Development Center. The Claims Commission, finding that the claimants had failed to take action in over one year, granted the State's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. The claimants appeal the Claims Commission's order dismissing their case for failure to prosecute.

Court of Appeals

Thomas Ponchik vs. Don Paul, et al
W2002-00150-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Plaintiff, an inmate at a correctional facility, filed a complaint against the facility's private management company and its employees, alleging violations of prisoner's rights under the United States Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Inmate appeals. We affirm.

Hardeman Court of Appeals

Roy Ernest Young v. Joylee Mayhew
W2002-00185-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Daniel L. Smith

Hardin Court of Appeals

Veriteena Hollins vs. Covington Pike Chrysler-Plymouth
W2002-00492-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
Ms. Hollins filed suit against Covington Pike Chrysler-Plymouth in general sessions court. On the day of the scheduled trial, Ms. Hollins' counsel announced a judgment for the defendant. Both parties agree that this judgment was announced in order to move the case from general sessions court to circuit court. Ms. Hollins never appealed the judgment. Eleven months later she refiled the case in general sessions court. The sessions court dismissed the case finding it to be res judicata. Ms. Hollins appealed this decision to circuit court. The circuit court granted Covington Pike Chrysler-Plymouth's motion for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. We agree.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Robert Chagrasulis v. Board of Medical Examiners
M2001-01595-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Appellant lost his license to practice medicine in the State of Maine. He later relocated to Tennessee and filed an application for a license to practice medicine. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners (the "Board") denied his application based on the disciplinary action taken against him in the State of Maine. The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed the Board's decision. Appellant now appeals the Davidson County Chancery Court's decision to this court and asserts that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. We affirm the trial court's decision.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Consumer Advocate Div. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority
M1997-00238-COA-R3-CV
The principal issue in this case is whether telephone directory assistance service is basic or non-basic under the statutory scheme. Secondary issues involve the practice of grandfathering existing customers when a new tariff is approved, the exemptions to directory assistance charges, and whether the Tennessee Regulatory Authority was authorized to transfer a contested case to another docket. We affirm.

Court of Appeals

Kimberly Haas v. Albert Haas
M2000-02850-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
In this appeal from the Davidson County Circuit Court, the Appellant, Kimberly Lynn Haas, questions whether the trial court erred in granting her an absolute divorce and rendering a final disposition of the parties' marital property, whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, whether the trial court erred in refusing to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages to the appellee's two antique chairs, whether the trial court erred in its division of the appellant's 401K Deferred Compensation Plan, whether the trial court erred in permitting the appellee to assert the Fifth Amendment on the issues of dissipation of marital assets and adultery, whether the trial court erred in refusing to meaningfully consider the appellant's gift of $25,000 to the appellee in dividing the parties' property, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the Toyota 4-Runner, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the rosewood antique table, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the $2,500 General Motors Cash Rebate, whether the trial court erred in not requiring the appellee to assume any of the outstanding marital debt on the Honda Accord, whether the trial court erred in its division of the General Motors credit card debt, and the method of payment of such marital debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse in part and remand as consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal shall be split between the parties.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Team Design v. Anthony Gottlieb
M1999-00911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This appeal raises important issues regarding the permissible range of court-annexed alternative dispute resolution procedures available under Tenn. S. Ct. R. 31. The case began in the Davidson County General Sessions Court as a dispute over payment for artwork and graphic design for a country music album. All the parties were dissatisfied with the general sessions court's disposition of their claims and perfected de novo appeals to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. When a dispute arose over the inability of two of the parties to be present on the agreed-upon trial date, the trial court, with all parties' agreement, entered an order referring the case to "binding mediation." The trial court conducted separate, off-the-record discussions with each of the parties and then entered an order finally adjudicating their claims. One of the parties filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion objecting to the order on the ground that it had not agreed to waive its right to a trial if the outcome of the mediation was unsatisfactory. After the trial court denied its motion, the moving party perfected this appeal. We have determined that the trial court lacked authority to conduct binding mediation or to finally adjudicate the parties' claims. Accordingly, we vacate the final order.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Jerry Seymour v. Tomisa Sierra
M2001-02278-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The only question involved in this appeal is whether an insured may proceed directly against its uninsured motorist carrier when the tortfeasor is in fact insured but service of process is returned "not to be found." The Circuit Court of Franklin County allowed the suit to proceed and we granted the insurance company's motion for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. P. After briefing and oral argument, we affirm the trial court.

Franklin Court of Appeals

In Re: The Estate of Lonzo Kelley
M2001-00847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Michael R. Jones
Lonzo Kelley operated a grocery store and borrowed a total of $250,000 from Heritage Bank ("Defendant") to operate the store. After Mr. Kelley died and there was no person or entity willing to assume control of the store, Defendant assumed operation of the store with the stated intent of protecting the assets, some of which were perishable. Defendant also believed the store would be more valuable at the time of foreclosure if it continued to remain open up until the time of sale. Defendant purchased new inventory and continued to operate the store until foreclosure took place. After foreclosure, and after deducting all expenses, etc., approximately $3,874.88 remained, which Defendant kept on deposit. Several years later, The Estate of Lonzo H. Kelley ("Plaintiff") filed suit making numerous challenges to Defendant's accounting practices, the manner in which Defendant operated the store, as well as its legal right to assume control of the store. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted judgment to Plaintiff in the amount of $9,132.09, but determined Defendant was within its rights to assume control of the store and had not engaged in any wrongful acts while operating the store. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Montgomery Court of Appeals

Alfred Akin v. Kylan Thompson
M2001-00851-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
The plaintiff Alfred Akin was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by the defendant Kylan Thompson, who was uninsured. The Allstate Insurance policy on the Akin vehicle provided uninsured motorist coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. Though in his personal vehicle, Mr. Akin was in the course and scope of his employment with the Metropolitan Nashville Water Works when injured. Metro government does not have a workers' compensation program, but has a benefit program for on-the-job injuries, under which it paid more than $100,000 for medical bills and disability benefits. The trial court held that Allstate's limits were reduced by amounts paid "under any workers' compensation law, disability law, or similar law . . . ." and also found that the loss of consortium claim of Mrs. Akin was derivative in nature and subject to the same $100,000 "each person" limit and reduction. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Mary Kelley v. Mahlon Johns
M1998-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
This appeal involves an intra-family dispute over the validity of an 88-year-old decedent's will leaving his farm to one of his nine children. After the will was admitted to probate in the Maury County Probate Court, six of the decedent's children filed suit in the Circuit Court for Maury County asserting that their father lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the will and that the will had been procured by undue influence by the child who received the farm. A jury determined that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and his son when the disputed will was executed and that the will was procured by undue influence. Accordingly, the trial court entered an order invalidating the will and setting aside the pending probate proceeding. On this appeal, the child who received the farm from his father insists that the evidence does not support the jury's findings that he had a confidential relationship with his father and that he exerted undue influence over his father with regard to the substance of the will. We have determined that the record contains material evidence to support the jury's verdict and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Maury Court of Appeals

Robert Marengo & Francine Marengo v. Terry Bowen
M2000-02379-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chancellor regarding the judicial dissolution of a continuing partnership. The trial court determined the withdrawing partner's debt should not be offset against his capital account in assessing his dissolution date value until the valuation of the business was made by the court, it was proper to add an additional $20,000 as a going concern adjustment to the valuation of the partnership, certain salary adjustments were proper, and a marketability and/or minority discount does not apply to the partnership. This Court concluded the trial court's determination offsetting the withdrawing partner's debt to the partnership as of the trial date was proper, the trial court erred in adding an additional $20,000 as a going concern value to the valuation of the partnership, the trial court's salary adjustment was proper, the trial court's refusal to apply a minority and/or marketability discount was proper, and the trial court's adjustment for a portion of the partnership's legal and professional expenses was proper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of the value of the withdrawing partner's interest as consistent with this order. Costs of this appeal shall be split between the appellant and the appellee.

Putnam Court of Appeals