Johnny L. Butler, v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, who is serving a sentence for a federal court conviction, has filed two petitions attacking prior state convictions which were used to enhance the sentence for the federal conviction. These two petitions, called petitions for the writ of coram nobis or for habeas corpus, were dismissed by the trial court without a hearing on the basis that they were actually petitions for post-conviction relief and barred by the statute of limitations. We agree with the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She argues that the trial court erred in holding that clear and convincing evidence established that she engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to her incarceration and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both of the trial court’s findings. We affirm. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Zoey O. Et Al.
Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights as to her two oldest |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Klowii W., Et Al.
This is a parental rights termination case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
WELFT, LLC v. Larry Elrod Et Al.
This appeal arises out of a dispute over commercial real property. The appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Because the appellants did not file their notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Sarah Berl v. Thomas Berl
This appeal stems from a post-divorce custody modification in which the father sought increased parenting time with his minor daughter, I.B. The trial court agreed with the father that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that a modification of the father’s parenting time was warranted. The trial court also awarded the father $15,000.00, or roughly half, of his attorney’s fees incurred in the trial court proceedings. The mother appeals the trial court’s decision. Because the father was, for the most part, the prevailing party at trial and proceeded in good faith, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father a portion of his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to attorney’s fees. However, we vacate the portion of the trial court’s final judgment placing a price cap on the minor child’s therapy fees. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified. Finally, we decline to award either party their attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
ROAR NORMANN RONNING v. LESLEY ANNE RONNING
This appeal concerns divorce related issues including property division, alimony, and child custody. Roar Normann Ronning (“Father”) sued Lesley Anne Ronning (“Mother”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Claiborne County (“the Trial Court”). The parties have a minor daughter, Freya (“the Child”). Over the course of multiple hearings, the Trial Court granted the parties a divorce and ultimately approved a parenting plan whereby Mother was named primary residential parent and received more parenting time with the Child than Father. One of the relevant factors in the child custody determination was Father’s career as a commercial airline pilot, which means he has a varied schedule. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the Trial Court erred in designating Mother primary residential parent, granting Mother more time with the Child than Father, and granting Mother major decision-making authority. Mother raises separate issues, including whether this appeal is frivolous. We find, inter alia, that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in making its custody determination. We find no reversible error in the Trial Court’s judgment. Mother’s separate issues are without merit. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE ESTATE OF NANN-ALIX WICKWIRE-MAGRILL
The trial court dismissed a will contest based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-12-119(c). Plaintiff appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Pruett Enterprises, Inc., v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance, Co.
This non-jury case involves the interpretation of a commercial insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford) to Pruett Enterprises, Inc. (Pruett). Pruett, the owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in Hamilton County, sued Hartford under the policy for “spoilage losses to various perishable items [caused] when electrical power to [two of Pruett’s] grocery stores was interrupted as a result of a heavy snow blizzard [on or about March 13, 1993].” Each of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Based upon the parties’ stipulation of facts, the trial court granted Hartford partial summary judgment, finding that the loss at 6925 Middle Valley Road, Hixson (“Middle Valley Store”) was not covered by the policy. As to the loss at Pruett’s store at 3936 Ringgold Road, East Ridge (“Ringgold Road Store”), the trial court found a genuine issue of fact and denied Hartford’s motion. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Williams v. The Lewis Preservation Trust
This is a negligent misrepresentation action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the |
Rhea | Court of Appeals |
