Cole Bryan Howell, III v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., Et Al.
The plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this action. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Jayla S.
The parents of Jayla S. appeal the termination of their parental rights. Jayla was removed from her parents’ custody because Jayla tested positive for amphetamines at birth. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) subsequently filed a petition to terminate both parents’ parental rights. Following a two-day trial, the trial court found that multiple grounds for termination had been proven, including the ground of severe child abuse. Finding it also to be in the best interest of Jayla that her parents’ parental rights be terminated, the court terminated both parents’ parental rights. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Alsco, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue- Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. As the majority notes, an administrative judge determined that the taxpayer’s sanitizing operations in this case do not constitute “manufacturing” as they are not “processing” tangible personal property. The administrative judge reasoned that a taxpayer is required to show that its activity fundamentally changes or transforms the property from the state or form in which it originally existed. Applying that standard, the administrative judge found that the state or form of the linens has not been changed or altered by the cleaning, as they remain the same linens before and after. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alsco, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Revenue
A taxpayer who rented hygienically-clean textiles to its customers challenged the revocation of three industrial machinery tax exemption certificates that it had previously been issued. An administrative judge determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the exemption because the taxpayer’s operations did not constitute “manufacturing” as they were not necessary for processing tangible personal property. The taxpayer appealed to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The chancery court reversed after concluding that the administrative decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the chancery court’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Monica A. Davalos (Dale) v. Douglas C. Dale
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Chad Aaron Reagan v. Rachel Bogart Reagan
The March 9, 2023 order from which the appellant has appealed was not effectively |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re James T.
A foster mother filed a petition to terminate parental rights and adopt a minor child. This appeal concerns the rights of a putative father who signed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity asserting that he was the biological father of the minor child. We have determined that the foster mother had standing to challenge the VAP, and we affirm the trial court’s decision disestablishing the putative father’s status as legal father. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Susan M. Austin v. Tommy Joe Richmond
Mother appeals the trial court’s order dismissing her petition for civil contempt and |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Lebel v. CWS Marketing Group, Inc.
The plaintiff purchased a home at an auction. The home was sold “as is.” The plaintiff |
Court of Appeals | ||
John Stanley Jarnagin v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center Et Al.
The Plaintiff brought suit alleging the Defendants failed to obtain informed consent prior to conducting a medical procedure. The Defendants responded with a consent form signed by the Plaintiff detailing the potential side effects of the procedure of which the Plaintiff asserted he had not been informed, and they moved for summary judgment. The Plaintiff argued the consent form in the present case was inadequate to establish informed consent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed, challenging the validity of the signed consent form based on an alleged misrepresentation and his inability to read because of an eye condition, and arguing, therefore, that there is a material question of fact as to whether informed consent was obtained. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Defari R.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. The juvenile court |
Court of Appeals | ||
Waste Management, Inc. of Tennessee v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County By and Through Davidson County Solid Waste Region Board
This appeal involves judicial review of the denial of approval to expand a private |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jon Beck v. Dyer County Board of Education, et al.
A tenured teacher appealed his dismissal for insubordination, neglect of duty, and |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Hasty v. Greyhawk Development Corporation
A plaintiff obtained a default judgment against a corporation. Ten months later, the plaintiff moved to pierce the corporate veil and enforce the judgment against an alleged alter ego of the corporation. The trial court denied the motion. Because the judgment was final and the alleged alter ego was never made a party to the action, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Bradley Sanders, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Decedent, Kelly Duggan v. Noah Higgins et al.
This appeal involves the disbursement of settlement proceeds proffered by an insurance company in resolution of a claim against it. The plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the decedent, who was killed when she was struck by a vehicle while riding her bicycle. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the vehicle’s driver and the driver’s parents, all of whom were subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit following a settlement unrelated to this appeal. Within the same action, the plaintiff asserted a claim against his and the decedent’s insurer for negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to procure insurance. The insurer had previously paid a pre-suit settlement to the plaintiff related to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the insurer had misrepresented additional coverage under an “umbrella policy,” leading the plaintiff and decedent to believe they were covered while failing to actually reinstate the umbrella policy when it had been temporarily cancelled months before the decedent’s death. The plaintiff and the insurer eventually reached a confidential settlement. To facilitate the release of claims by both the plaintiff and the decedent’s estate and upon the estate’s motion, the trial court entered an agreed order allowing the estate to intervene. The plaintiff then filed a motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him, and the estate filed an intervening complaint and opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, asserting that the estate was entitled to one hundred percent of the settlement proceeds related to the umbrella policy claim. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s motion to disburse the settlement proceeds to him upon finding that the cause of action against the insurer had not vested in the decedent prior to her death. The court subsequently denied the estate’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The estate has appealed. Determining that the cause of action against the insurer was based in tort, rather than wrongful death, and accrued to the decedent at the time of her fatal injuries, we conclude that the right to the resulting settlement proceeds belongs to the decedent’s estate. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order granting disbursal of the settlement funds to the estate. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delinquent Taxpayers 2009 (Anthony Decarlo Hayes)
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sarrah Willhite v. Jeremy Willhite
This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 23, 2022. The Notice of Appeal |
Court of Appeals | ||
Albert Fuqua v. The Robertson County Election Commission et al.
Appellant filed this action against his local election commission seeking to prevent a candidate from being placed on the ballot of the August 4, 2022 Robertson County election for circuit court clerk. We dismiss this appeal as moot. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Clarence Mitchell, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, et al.
Plaintiffs brought suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stuart Richard James, III v. Stephanie Lynne James
This is a post-divorce dispute. Two primary issues are presented, whether the trial court |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a petition for emergency custody and its |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anthony Wade v. Biobele Georgewill
Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that she breached a contract and |
Court of Appeals | ||
William Burkett Et Al. v. Julia Cris Stevens
This appeal concerns the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. A number of property owners (“Plaintiffs”) in the German Creek Cabin Site Subdivision sued fellow property owner Julia Cris Stevens (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Grainger County (“the Trial Court”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to prevent Defendant from completing a 400 square foot structure on her lot as it would constitute a second dwelling on the original lot in contravention of a restrictive covenant. The Trial Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor, ordering Defendant to remove the structure and granting permanent injunctive relief. Defendant appeals. She argues, among other things that it is inequitable to require her to remove the structure. She also contends that it is not a dwelling. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
JCR, LLC Et Al. v. Vicki Hance Et Al. - Dissent
Because “[t]here is absolutely no doubt that wrongful foreclosure can be raised as |
Court of Appeals | ||
SPSGNVL Incorporated v. AAA Anodizing & Metal Finishing, Inc. Et Al.
This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff staffing agency alleged nonpayment |
Court of Appeals |