Joshua Hilliard v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board, et al.
Inmate appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari. The chancery court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and because inmate failed to show that the prison disciplinary board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily. We affirm, finding the inmate failed to show that the disciplinary board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Rick Earl, et al. v. Dr. Raquel Hatter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Human Services, et al.
Married couple sought judicial review of decision of Department of Human Services holding that they were not eligible for medicaid under an amendment to the Social Security Act known as the “Pickle Amendment.” Upon consideration of the record we affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bridget Michelle Agee v. Jason Forest Agee
In this post-divorce dispute, Father challenges the trial court’s modification of the parenting plan to designate Mother as primary residential parent and the trial court’s calculation of his income and monthly child support obligation. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Standards Division
This is an administrative appeal in which an employer challenges the decision of the Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development finding the employer in violation of the Tennessee Child Labor Act for failing to furnish, within one hour of demand, personnel files of each of its minor employees. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Department and this appeal followed. Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-5-111(1) & (4) require employers to “make, keep and preserve a separate and independent file record for each minor employed, which shall be kept at the location of the minor’s employment” and to “furnish” the records relative to the minor employees. On appeal, the employer contends it maintained the records on site as required, thus it did not violate Subsection (1) of the statute. The employer also asserts that it has a Fourth Amendment right to object to a warrantless search by the Department and it may not be penalized for asserting its constitutional right. We have determined the Department’s decision to assess penalties for violating Subsection (1) of Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-5-111 is not supported by substantial and material evidence and the inference drawn by the Department that the records were not maintained on site based upon a mere inference drawn from the fact they were not produced within one hour of demand is insufficient. Therefore, the assessments for allegedly failing to maintain personnel records of minor employees on site is reversed. As for the requirement under Subsection (4) of Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-5-111 that employers of minor employees furnish and allow inspection of the separate and independent file records for each minor employed upon request by the Department, the Act expressly provides that if the Department is denied permission to make an inspection, Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-4-101 provides that the Department employee or official may obtain an administrative inspection warrant in accordance with the procedures outlined in the statute; the Department did not seek to obtain a warrant in this case. As for refusing the Department’s request to inspect the records without an administrative warrant, in order for a warrantless search or inspection to be constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Department must establish that the employer was part of a pervasively regulated industry or that the employer had weakened or reduced privacy expectations that are significantly overshadowed by the Department’s interests in regulating the employer’s industry. We have determined the Department failed to establish either; accordingly, the Department cannot assess a penalty against an employer for asserting its constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.Thus, the penalty assessed for allegedly violating Subsection (4) of the statute is reversed. Pursuant to the foregoing, we remand with instructions for the trial court to order the Department to vacate the citations and penalties against the employer. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Standards Division - CONCUR
I fully concur in parts A and B of the opinion’s analysis section; however, I have some reservations regarding part C. I have chosen to write separately to highlight my concerns about the implications of this opinion for administrative inspections generally. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Shirleen Nevels v. Joseph Contarino, M.D. et al.
The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice claim on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss, after excluding the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness. Because the trial court erred in its application of the locality rule and Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence, we reverse. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Linda M. Pettigrew v. Dennis A. Pettigrew
In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded the wife her attorney's fees as alimony in solido. The husband appeals this issue arguing that the wife's property settlement was such that she should pay her attorney's fees out of the property settlement. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Preston C. G.
This appeal involves Father’s petition to be named primary residential parent of his son. The trial court held that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child’s best interest to spend more time with the Father; however, the court determined that Mother should remain the child’s primary residential parent. Father appeals the trial court’s determination that it is in the best interest of the parties’ son for Mother to be the primary residential parent. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
RCR Building Corporation v. Pinnacle Hospitality Partners, et al.
This appeal involves a contract for the construction of a hotel. The project owner refused to make the final payment owed to the general contractor, claiming that it was entitled to withhold $237,000 in liquidated damages because the project was not completed on time, in addition to deducting other “offsets” under the contract. The general contractor claimed that the owner was not entitled to liquidated damages for several reasons, including the fact that the owner had caused delays, and the fact that the owner had failed to make a timely claim for liquidated damages as required by the contract. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the owner on the issue of liquidated damages, allowing the owner to subtract $237,000 from the final payment it owed under the contract. The court also resolved several other issues between the parties. The trial court declared the owner to be the prevailing party in the litigation and awarded the owner its attorney’s fees. The general contractor appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Filippo Carbone v. Brenda Blaeser
This is a child custody case. Appellant/Mother appeals the denial of her Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 motion to vacate the order granting Father/Appellee’s petition for custody of the minor child and for enrollment of a foreign decree on custody. Mother received, at most, three days notice before the hearing on Father’s petition in violation of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.04. Because Mother did not receive adequate notice, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Mother Rule 59 relief. Reversed and remanded. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Tikita Jones v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board & Shelby County Division of Health Services
This is an appeal from an administrative decision on the termination of the employment of a municipal employee. The appellant employee was fired from her job with the appellee municipal health department for accessing patient medical records without authorization. The appellee civil service merit board of the municipality conducted an administrative hearing and upheld the termination of her employment. The employee filed a lawsuit in chancery court seeking judicial review of this decision. The trial court affirmed the decision of the civil service merit board and upheld the termination. The employee now appeals this decision, arguing that her due process rights were violated and that the decision of the civil service merit board was not supported by substantial and material evidence. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Covista Communications, Inc. v. Oorah, Inc. d/b/a Cucumber Communications, Inc.
This appeal involves in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. The chancery court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12.02(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the defendant had not purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Tennessee and did not have sufficient contacts with Tennessee to be subjected to jurisdiction in this state. The plaintiff, a corporation that claims its principal place of business is in Tennessee, appeals. We find that the circumstances do not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant foreign corporation by a Tennessee court. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Smith c/o rodterrius M. Tinnel (Deceased) et al. v. HFH, Inc. d/b/a DHL and Pacific Employers Insurance Company et al.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an order of dismissal for failure to state a claim. Because the appellant did not file her notice of appeal with the trial court clerk within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Latif Abdulsayed et al. v. Randal Hand et al.
This appeal arises from two very unorthodox contracts by which Buyers purchased a retail convenience market, the equipment and inventory of the market, and the underlying real estate. Within four months of the purchase, Buyers commenced this action seeking rescission of the contracts on the basis of Sellers’ breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. Sellers prevailed on all issues in the trial court and recovered the business and real estate. The trial court also ruled that Sellers were entitled to keep the $190,000 down payment on the real estate. On appeal, Buyers raise several issues, inter alia, they contend the trial court erred in finding they did not prove fraudulent inducement or intentional misrepresentation, that the court erred in finding that Buyers breached the contract, and that the trial court erred in awarding Sellers the $190,000 down payment as damages for Buyers’ breach of the contract when Sellers did not plead damages in their counter-complaint. We have determined the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that Sellers did not make intentional misrepresentations, and that, to the contrary, the preponderance of the evidence established that Sellers made intentional misrepresentations for which Buyers are entitled to a rescission of the contracts and return of their $190,000 down payment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Zacharias T.M., et al.
The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Wyatt S.
This appeal arises from a dependency and neglect proceeding. The State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition against Lisa M. S. (“Mother”) seeking to adjudicate her minor child Wyatt S. (“the Child”), born in March of 1998, dependent and neglected. The petition was rooted in the Child’s disclosures that Mother had sexually abused him. The juvenile court found the Child dependent and neglected. Mother appealed to the Circuit Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”) for a de novo hearing. The Trial Court found the Child dependent and neglected by clear and convincing evidence. The Trial Court also specifically found severe child abuse in this case. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Kelley
This is an appeal from the dismissal of Appellant/juvenile’s appeal of the juvenile court’s determination of delinquency to the circuit court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 37-1-159. While the appeal was pending, Appellant ran away from the group home, where he had been ordered to live. Appellee Department of Children’s Services filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court determined that the appeal should be dismissed based upon application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The court further determined that Appellant had capacity, under the Rule of Sevens, to be held responsible for his actions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Leon Marshall v. Civil Service Commission of the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Department of Safety
Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322, a former Tennessee State Trooper appeals the chancery court’s judgment affirming the Tennessee Civil Service Commission’s decision to terminate his employment. The Commission affirmed the initial order of the Administrative Law Judge, who upheld the Tennessee Department of Safety’s decision to terminate the trooper’s employment for violations of its policies and procedures and for the good of the service pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-30-326. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Connor S.L.
In this paternity case, Father appeals the Carroll County Juvenile Court’s rulings with regard to custody and parenting time with his minor child. The trial court’s ruling as to the paternity of the child is affirmed. However, because the trial court did not comply with Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we vacate the judgment of the trial court with regard to custody and the parenting schedule and remand for entry of an order with appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Isobel V. O. and Bree'Ana J.A.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father based on abandonment for failure to support and failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. We reverse termination on the grounds of abandonment, and affirm termination of parental rights on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions. We also affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Leroy J. Humphries, et al. v. Nicolas C. Minbiole, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute between adjacent landowners over Defendants’ installation of a private water line within a right-of-way easement across the Plaintiffs’ property. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Defendants’ private water line trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property. Further, the trial court ordered that the Defendants would be incarcerated if they did not remove the water line and return Plaintiffs’ property to its previous condition within thirty (30) days. Defendants appealed. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. |
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company v. Jami McNair Tuck, et al.
An insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that mother and child were residents of the insured’s household, and therefore, that coverage for the death of the child was excluded bythe relevanthomeowner’s insurance policy. The chancery court found that mother and child were not residents of the insured’s household at the time of the child’s death, and we affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis Civil Service Commission v. Steven Payton
A City of Memphis firefighter who participated in the City’s employee assistance program was terminated after his second positive drug screen. The firefighter appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission. He argued that his drug screen results were confidential under federal law and that he had not executed a consent form to authorize the disclosure of the results to the City. The Commission overruled the firefighter’s motion to exclude the test results and upheld his termination. The chancery court reversed, finding that the drug screen results were inadmissible because the City had failed to comply with federal law. We find substantial and material evidence to support the decision of the Commission, and therefore reverse the decision of the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis Civil Service Commission v. Steven Payton - Concurring
I concur in the majority’s holding that the followup drug screen at issue was not a “[r]ecord[] of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment” of Mr. Payton, and therefore was not covered by 42 U.S.C.A. § 290dd-2(a). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James D. Holder and Barbara L. Holder v. S & S Family Entertainment, LLC
Plaintiff purchased family entertainment center businesses from defendants and it leased, from defendants, buildings in which the entertainment centers were operated. Plaintiff also purchased certain assets from defendants, but a dispute ultimately arose regarding certain assets’ inclusion within the sale. At the expiration of the building leases, defendants filed suit claiming that plaintiff had damaged their property, that plaintiff had improperly removed certain items from the buildings, and that it had failed to remove other items which it should have removed. Plaintiff filed an answer and counterclaim asserting ownership of the allegedly damaged, improperly removed, and non-removed property, and further claiming that defendants had reneged upon an agreement to sell it one of the buildings at issue. The trial court entered a brief order awarding defendants damages and dismissing plaintiff’s counterclaim. Plaintiff moved the trial court to alter or amend its judgment and for entry of a final order. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding there were no remaining issues in need of resolution. We find that the order appealed is not a final judgment, and therefore, that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, we must dismiss this appeal and remand to the trial court for appropriate findings and entry of a final order. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals |
