BEP Services, Inc. v. Carefirst Foundation, Inc. f/k/a Provident Foundation, Inc.
Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendants in its suit filed on the theory of equitable subrogation. The trial court found that the undisputed facts established that plaintiff acted as a volunteer and proved no fraud, accident or mistake. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Terrie Lynn Hall Hankins v. James Michael Hankins
In this case, the plaintiff wife filed for divorce from the defendant husband in December of 2003. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: M.A.B, D.C.M, M.A.M, M.I.M, D.Z.M and W.M.E.M.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to six of her children based upon the persistence of conditions that led to removal of the children from Mother’s care by the Department of Children’s Services and upon finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Steven D. Tutt v. Tennessee Dept. of Corrections
An inmate convicted of rape of a child filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, asking the Chancery Court to find that he was entitled to earn sentence reduction credits so he could be released from prison before the end of his fifteen year sentence. The Chancery Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the statute under which he was convicted required him to serve 100% of his sentence, undiminished by any sentence reduction credits. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis N. Robinson, et al. v. Baptist Memorial Hospital - Lauderdale
This appeal arises from a medical negligence case in which a jury verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees and against Defendant/Appellant Hospital. The Hospital appeals on numerous grounds including: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing certain evidence in alleged contravention of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.05 and 37.03, (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting the Hospital’s motion for new trial on the grounds of alleged inappropriate and inflammatory comments and arguments by opposing counsel; and (3) whether there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Duke Bowers Clement v. Janet Leigh Traylor Clement
This is the second appeal of a divorce case. In the first appeal, this Court determined that the trial court erred in the valuation and distribution of the parties’ marital residence, and concluded that the equity in the marital residence should be divided equally between the parties. The cause was remanded to the trial court to consider a method of payment. Before the matter was considered by the trial court on remand, the parties agreed to sell the property. After the property was sold, they divided the proceeds equally. The wife then filed a petition in the trial court disputing the amount she received. She also sought post-judgment interest from the date of the final divorce decree. The trial court denied the wife’s petition. The wife now appeals for a second time. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald M. Floyd, et al. v. Prime Succession of TN, et al.
This lawsuit was filed by the husband and children of Gail Lavan Floyd, who died in March 2000. T. Ray Brent Marsh (“Marsh”) and the company managed by him, Tri-State Crematory, Inc. (“Tri- State”), are the only remaining defendants. The instant case is one of many civil actions filed against Marsh and Tri-State following the discovery of over 300 bodies on the company’s premises. The bodies were to have been cremated, but were not. Criminal charges were brought against Marsh in Georgia and Tennessee. He pleaded guilty to many of the charges. Following Marsh’s sentencing, he was noticed, for the second time, to give a deposition in the instant action. At an earlier deposition, he had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. As to the present notice, the trial court concluded that Marsh could no longer invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege because, in the court’s judgment, he is no longer facing criminal prosecution. The court ordered Marsh to give a second deposition and further ordered that he could not refuse to answer any question posed to him at the deposition if his refusal was predicated upon the Fifth Amendment. We granted Marsh’s Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application for an interlocutory appeal. We affirm in part and vacate in part. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Tonya L. Merrick v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, being of the opinion the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Farmer v. David Hersh
This is a defamation case. The defendant owned a minor league baseball team which played for the City of Jackson, Tennessee. In 2002, the plaintiff, the mayor of Jackson, was negotiating with the defendant team owners to purchase the baseball team on behalf of the city. Soon the plaintiff mayor and the defendant owner became embroiled in a lawsuit related to the sale of the team. Two years later, the plaintiff mayor filed the instant lawsuit, alleging that the defendant team owner had defamed him by telling the media that the mayor was attempting to “steal” the team. After some discovery, the defendant team owner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court noted that matters outside the complaint had been submitted to the court, and it therefore treated the motion as one for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the statement allegedly made by the defendant team owner was not defamatory, and that the plaintiff mayor had not presented sufficient proof of damages. The plaintiff mayor now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the statement allegedly made is mere hyperbole and not defamatory as a matter of law. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Randal Louis Murdaugh v. Svetlana Nicolaevna Shketik (Murdaugh)
In this divorce case, the husband filed for divorce approximately five months after entering into marriage with the wife, an immigrant who had come to the United States from Latvia on a religious work visa. The husband resided in Madison County, Tennessee, and the wife and her son spent a majority of the duration of the marriage living in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the wife worked for a church and her son attended school. The chancellor awarded the wife temporary support and held a bench trial. The chancellor granted the parties a divorce based upon stipulated grounds and awarded the wife 25% of the value of the parties’ marital property, as well as attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Melvin Perry v. Bruce Westbrooks, et al.
Appellant challenges trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The record reveals that the court reached its decision in a lawful manner. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Cheryl Brown Giggers, et al. v. Memphis Housing Authority, et al.
This appeal involves a wrongful death action arising from the fatal shooting of a tenant at a public housing property. The decedent was in the manager’s office of the apartment complex when another tenant, who was involved in an altercation with a security guard on the premises, obtained a rifle from his apartment and began shooting at the security guard. The decedent was struck and killed by a bullet fired by the other tenant during the incident. The plaintiffs, the surviving children and sister of the decedent, sued the defendant owner and operator of the public housing property, asserting claims for wrongful death through negligence and breach of contract per the lease agreement. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cassandra Rogers v. State of Tennessee
Following a car accident, Claimant/Appellant filed a Complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Complaint stated that Claimant/Appellant did not have sufficient facts to state definitively a claim for negligence against a Tennessee State Trooper. The State filed a motion to dismiss, which the Commission granted. Claimant/Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Willis B. Amos, et al. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the lump-sum payments made to Appellants upon their retirement were not for performing personal services; but instead, were in lieu of the employee using his/her accrued vacation time. Although the payments were indeed made in lieu of the employee using his/her accrued vacation time, the payments were compensation for the employee performing personal services during his/her employment.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Willis Bruce Amos, et al. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
This appeal involves a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether pursuant to the Metro Code, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, should have included lump-sum payments for accrued vacation time in the calculation of pension benefits for retired employees, or in the alternative, whether the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee should be estopped from excluding lump-sum payments for accrued vacation time from the calculation of pension benefits for retired employees. On appeal, the Appellants claim that the trial court erred in finding that: 1) pursuant to the Metro Code, lump-sum payments should be excluded from the calculation of pension benefits for retired employees, 2) the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee is not estopped from excluding the lump-sum payments from the calculations, and 3) denying certification of this matter as a class action. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ann M. Honeycutt v. Wilkes, Mccullough & Wagner, and Barbara McCullough, Individually
This appeal involves a legal malpractice claim that a client brought against her former attorney after this Court issued a decision terminating the client’s receipt of alimony. The attorney had represented the client in her divorce case. When the parties executed their marital dissolution agreement, the attorney allegedly provided erroneous advice to the client about a provision that would terminate her alimony if she cohabited with an unrelated male. Subsequent to the divorce, the client’s ex-husband filed a petition to terminate his alimony obligation because the client was living with another man. Although the client initially retained this same attorney to defend against the petition, she later discharged her and retained other counsel. The trial court ruled in the client’s favor, but on appeal, we reversed and terminated the alimony obligation. The client then sued her former attorney, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the attorney based upon the one year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of: M.A.W.
The trial court dismissed Father’s petition to modify child custody upon determining no material change in circumstances had occurred. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Accredo Health Incorporated, et al. v. David Patterson
The trial court dismissed this lawsuit upon determining that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a Texas resident. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Campbell v. Country Homes, Inc., et al.
On this appeal, it is alleged the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to obey an order compelling discovery and for refusing to vacate that order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Terre Jo Fields v. James R. Fields, Jr.
Husband was found in civil contempt and incarcerated. He was further enjoined from being selfemployed. He appeals only the injunction which we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Nancy Ann McCracken Sizemore v. Steven Douglas Sizemore and Nancy Ann McCracken Sizemore v. Steven Douglas Sizemore
Nancy Ann McCracken Sizemore (“Wife”) initially sued her spouse, Steven Douglas Sizemore (“Husband”), for divorce in the Washington County Circuit Court. She subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in that case. On the day the notice of nonsuit was filed in Circuit Court, Wife filed a divorce complaint in the Chancery Court for Washington County. The parties proceeded to trial in that court. The Chancery Court granted Wife a divorce, divided the parties’ marital property, and ordered Husband to pay Wife child support and alimony. Following the entry of the Chancery Court’s judgment, Husband filed a counterclaim in the Circuit Court proceeding – the one that had been dormant since Wife filed her notice of voluntary nonsuit some two years earlier. He argues that the case in Circuit Court was still pending because that court had not entered an order dismissing Wife’s complaint. The Circuit Court dismissed Husband’s counterclaim, stating (1) that Husband had waived his right to have the parties’ divorce case tried in Circuit Court by fully participating in the trial in Chancery Court; and (2) that Wife’s notice of nonsuit had “effectively dismissed the case” in Circuit Court. On appeal from the Chancery Court case, Husband contends that (1) the Chancery Court “never had jurisdiction” because the complaint in Circuit Court was pending when the -2- Chancery Court purported to assume jurisdiction; (2) the Chancery Court erred in not allowing him to obtain a transcript of the divorce hearing; (3) the Chancellor was biased against him and should have recused himself; (4) the Chancery Court erred in ordering him to pay child support for the parties’ disabled adult son; (5) the Chancery Court erred in its division of the parties’ marital property; (6) the Chancery Court erred in awarding Wife alimony; (7) the Chancery Court erred in imputing $100,000 per year of income to Husband; and (8) the Chancery Court erred in finding him in contempt. On appeal from the Circuit Court, Husband argues that the court lacked authority to dismiss his counterclaim. We affirm the judgments of both courts. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scotty Henry Pace, Jr.
The appellant’s former girlfriend obtained an order of protection against the appellant in June of 2003. In August of 2003, the former girlfriend filed warrants alleging two separate violations of the order of protection by the appellant. The general sessions court found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt for both violations and sentenced the appellant to ten days in jail for each offense. The appellant appealed to the circuit court, which held a hearing and affirmed the convictions. Because the appellant has failed to include in the appellate record the June 2003 order of protection which he was found to have violated, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa McWherter v. JACOA Alcoholism Center
This is a negligence case. The defendant is a treatment facility for drug and alcohol addictions. The plaintiff was an inpatient at the defendant facility, undergoing substance abuse treatment. The plaintiff was admitted on referral from her probation officer. As part of her treatment, the plaintiff participated in experiential therapy designed to teach through experiences. For one exercise, a group of patients were organized into a team and a rope was tied between two posts, with a mattress on one side. The team was asked to devise a plan for getting all team members over the rope, without touching it. The plaintiff’s team decided to “toss” the female members of the team over the rope. The plaintiff was thrown over the rope once without injury. However, the team had to repeat the exercise. During the second attempt, the plaintiff was tossed over the rope, but this time her foot missed the mattress and she broke her ankle. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against the defendant facility. The facility moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable because the plaintiff voluntarily chose to engage in the exercise despite an obvious risk of injury. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff now appeals. We reverse and remand, finding that the defendant facility had a duty of care to the plaintiff and that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the extent to which the plaintiff felt compelled to participate in the exercise and as to whether the fault attributable to the plaintiff is greater than the fault attributable to the defendant facility. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, v. P.W.K., In Re: J.B.K. DOB: 11/25/02
The parties stipulated statutory grounds for termination of parental rights, and the Trial Court found that it was in the child’s best interest that the father’s parental rights be terminated. On appeal, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Lilliane Kambu v. Jean Katera
The Trial Court granted the parties a divorce, ordering the husband to pay child support and alimony in futuro. The husband has appealed arguing the Trial Court abused its discretion in awarding the wife alimony. We modify the alimony award and otherwise affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals |
