Clayton Ward v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Plaintiff, a railroad employee, filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging that his left ankle injury was caused by his working conditions. The railroad filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment but subsequently granted the railroad’s motion for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We granted the railroad’s application for an interlocutory appeal and now affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Floyd E. Bell v. Eller Media Company, a Tennessee Corporation
Pursuant to a lease agreement, Defendant was allowed to place a billboard on Plaintiff’s building. After the billboard allegedly caused damage to Plaintiff’s building, Plaintiff notified Defendant. Defendant then sent a letter to Plaintiff terminating the lease, but Plaintiff claims Defendant later agreed to remove the billboard and make repairs to his building. When such repair and complete removal were not made, Plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert D. Gray v. Andy B. Roten, II and Gary B. Roten
This case involves an accident between a bicycle and a pick-up truck. Appellant was struck by Appellee’s truck when Appellant failed to obey a stop sign and rode his bicycle into traffic. The trial court found that Appellant was sixty percent at fault for the accident, and, pursuant to a comparative fault analysis, entered judgment for Appellee. On appeal, we find that the trial court erred in applying a pedestrian statute to a bicyclist, but that this error was harmless in light of our finding that Appellant was negligent per se in failing to obey the stop sign, and/or in failing to yield to oncoming traffic. We conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s finding that Appellant was at least sixty percent at fault so as to foreclose any recovery under a comparative fault analysis. Affirmed for the reasons discussed herein. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Destiny S.
Hank P. (“Father”) is the biological father of Destiny S. (“the “Child”). After the Child was removed from Father’s home in 2006, the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) eventually filed a petition to terminate his parental rights to the Child. Following a trial, the Juvenile Court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(2) and (g)(3). The Juvenile Court also found that the evidence established clearly and convincingly that it was in the best interest of the Child for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. Father appeals challenging these findings as well as an evidentiary ruling and the Juvenile Court Judge’s refusal to recuse himself. We affirm the Juvenile Court’s judgment. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Open Lake Sporting Club v. Lauderdale Haywood Angling Club
This appeal involves a dispute over the location of a boundary line between tracts of land owned by two hunting clubs. After many years of litigation, the parties agreed that a new survey would be conducted by a new surveyor and that they would be bound by his decision. After the new surveyor filed a report and survey, one of the clubs filed a motion to set aside the survey, contending that the new surveyor did not make an independent determination regarding the location of the boundary line, but rather, copied a previous survey that was completed in the past. The trial judge refused to hold a hearing regarding the validity of the survey because the parties had agreed to be bound by the surveyor’s decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Rose v. Cookeville Regional Medical Center Authority, et al.
Plaintiff, a lactation consultant formerly employed by Cookeville Regional Medical Center, sued the hospital for common law retaliatory discharge and violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act; plaintiff also asserted a claim for punitive damages. The case was tried before a jury. At the close of plaintiff’s proof, the court granted the Medical Center’s motion for directed verdict on the Protection Act and punitive damages claims; the common law retaliatory discharge claim was allowed to proceed to the jury. The jury found for the Medical Center. Plaintiff appeals, asserting error in the trial court’s grant of directed verdict and its rulings on evidentiary issues. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee for the use and benefit of Williamson County, et al. v. Jesus Christ’s Church @ Liberty Church Road, et al.
Landowner appeals trial court’s grant of summary judgment to county in action to enforce delinquent tax lien. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa J. Allen v. Randy C. Allen
In this divorce case, Plaintiff and her counsel failed to appear in court on the scheduled date of trial. The trial court held the hearing ex parte in their absence. Plaintiff hired new counsel and filed a “Motion to Set Aside Judgment,” which we discern to be a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59. The trial court held a hearing on the motion; however, Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence explaining her failure to appear on the scheduled trial date. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion. After reviewing the record, we affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Calvin Wilhite v. Tennessee Board of Parole
Appellant filed this petition for common law writ of certiorari when the Board of Probation and Parole denied him parole. He contends the Board’s decision was illegal, arbitrary, fraudulent, and in excess of its jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tyrone W. Vanlier v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board et al.
An inmate at the Turney Center Industrial Complex filed this petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the ruling of the Turney Center Disciplinary Board that he failed to report for work, imposed a fine, and placed him on probation. After the Board’s ruling was affirmed by the Warden and Commissioner of Correction, this petition was filed. The chancellor dismissed the writ. We affirm the ruling of the chancellor. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lindsey N.L.
In this child support matter, the mother filed a motion for contempt after the father failed to pay the minor child’s medical bills and insurance expenses as ordered by the trial court. After being found by the trial court to be in contempt, the father requested a new trial or an amendment of the judgment. The trial court denied the request and the father appealed from that order. The State of Tennessee, on behalf of the mother, moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that it was prematurely filed. Upon our review of the record, we find that the father has appealed from an order that does not resolve all the claims against him. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
William (Bob) Simerly, et al vs City of Elizabethton
William (Bob) Simerly and Lewis Honeycutt (collectively “the Retirees”), along with numerous other former employees of the Elizabethton Electric System (“the EES”) brought this civil action against the City of Elizabethton (“the City”) to recover the value of certain EES benefits claimed to be owed them and wrongfully withheld by the City. After the City agreed to reduce its claims and counterclaims along with all the former employees taking voluntary dismissals, with the exception of Mr. Simerly and Mr. Honeycutt, both parties jointly filed a motion for partial summary judgment whereby the trial court was asked to rule on the legal validity of the underlying contracts upon stipulation by the parties of a number of exhibits and facts. The trial court granted the Retirees partial summary judgment, finding the underlying contracts to be legally valid, and the benefits promised thereunder to still be in force. The trial court’s partial judgment reserved the issue of the amount of the Retirees’ damages for a later hearing. The City then filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s ruling before the hearing on the damages could be scheduled. The Retirees moved in this court to dismiss the appeal on the basis of lack of finality of the trial court’s partial judgment. We denied the Retirees’ motion without prejudice. We reverse the ruling of the trial court on the partial summary judgment. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Convervatorship of Goldie Childs
Two of the daughters of an eighty-two year old woman filed a petition to be named as their mother’s Conservator. The trial court found that the mother did indeed need a Conservator, but because of family disagreements it appointed a third party to perform that role. Seven months later, the same daughters filed a petition to remove the incumbent Conservator and to be named as Co-Conservators to replace her. The mother died after proceedings on the second petition began, but before the trial court could rule on its merits. The Conservator subsequently moved the court for payment of her fees. The court found that some of those fees were incurred as a direct result of the uncooperative acts of the two daughters. Since the decedent’s estate was indigent, the court entered two money judgments for costs against the daughters. We reverse the judgment that was assessed against one of the daughters for failing to return her mother to the nursing home in a timely way, because although her actions led to additional costs, no legal basis for the judgment appears in the record. We vacate the judgment based on the unsuccessful petition to remove the conservator and we remand the case for further proceedings, because although Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-114 does allow an assessment of costs against such petitioners, it is unclear how much of the court’s judgment falls within the parameters of that statute. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kathy D. Partee v. Jaime Vasquez, M.D.
A woman who suffered prolonged bleeding, pain and disabling injury after gynecological surgery filed a pro se malpractice suit against the doctor who performed the surgery. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit in which he testified that in his treatment of the plaintiff he complied at all times with the relevant standard of acceptable professional practice. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to find an expert witness to controvert that affidavit. The trial court granted the plaintiff several continuances to give her the opportunity to procure representation and expert testimony, but when she was unable to do so, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Claude Ramsey, Mayor of Hamilton County, Tenn., et al. v. Tenn. Department of Human Services et al.
The Hamilton County mayor and members of the county commission filed suit against the Tennessee Department of Human Services seeking judicial review of an administrative decision holding that the county penal farm’s commissary and vending machines and the vending facilities at another county building were subject to DHS’s statutory priority regarding blind vendors. The chancellor affirmed the administrative decision, and we affirm the chancellor’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael B. Woods v. Metropolitan Development and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
The petitioner, a former property manager for the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency, was fired amid allegations that he had sexually harassed tenants and neglected his official duties by failing to properly prepare monthly reports. He appealed the termination of his employment to the Board of Commissioners of MDHA. The Board appointed a hearing officer who conducted a two-day hearing, following which the hearing officer found that the proof was insufficient to support a finding of sexual harassment and recommended that Petitioner be reinstated but demoted due to his failure to provide the required monthly reports. The Board subsequently rejected the recommendation and affirmed Petitioner’s termination based on the risk of future negligent retention sexual harassment suits and the fact he was an at-will employee who could be fired without cause. Petitioner then filed this petition for a common law writ of certiorari, contending MDHA acted arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally because it did not have just cause to fire him and because the decision to terminate him was due to his refusal to waive his right to appeal. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or illegally because Petitioner was an employee-at-will who could be fired without just cause. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Greenbank, f/k/a Greene County Bank v. Barbara J. Thompson, et al.
Bank provided a loan to Borrowers for the purchase of real property and construction of a log cabin home. After Borrowers defaulted on the loan, Bank sold the property at a foreclosure sale. Bank then initiated a lawsuit alleging conversion, negligent business representation, and promissory fraud. Bank also sought a deficiency judgment for the difference in the amount owed on the loan and the foreclosure sale price. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded a judgment for $61,782.12 and a deficiency judgment for $300,644.92 in favor of Bank. Borrowers appeal. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Bevin H.
This is a case regarding the custody of a minor female child, Bevin H. (DOB: Dec. 19, 2001) (“the Child”). The Child was born to Randy H. (“Father”) and his wife. Tragically, the Child’s mother died two days after the Child was born. Shortly thereafter, the Child’s paternal aunt, Rhonda H. (“Aunt”) and her husband, became the Child’s primary caregivers. Aunt sought custody, alleging that the Child was dependent and neglected in Father’s care. During the pendency of the custody case, the Child was taken into state custody based on evidence that she had been sexually molested. The Child was released to Father and Aunt under an agreed shared parenting plan before the parties filed competing custody petitions. Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted Aunt custody of the Child upon finding that the Child faced a risk of substantial harm if left in Father’s custody. Father was granted supervised visitation with the Child. Father appealed to the trial court. In a two-sentence decision, with no findings of fact, the trial court reversed and placed full custody of the Child with Father. Aunt appeals. We reverse. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship for WilIiam J. Allen
In this conservatorship action, we granted the application of Jay R. Slobey, James A. Freeman, III and Megan E. Livingstone, all attorneys, for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal seeking relief with respect to two interlocutory orders of the trial court. The orders are: (1) one prohibiting attorneys with the law firm of James A. Freeman & Associates, P.C. from representing William J. Allen (“the Ward”); and (2) another appointing attorney David L. Robbins as “Attorney ad Litem” but requiring him to perform duties “pursuant to T.C.A.§34-1-107,” a statute dealing with guardians ad litem. After this appeal was granted, the trial court entered an order purporting to “amend its order . . . which appoints David L. Robbins to serve as Attorney ad Litem pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-107 . . . to reflect that David L. Robbins is to serve . . . pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-125,” a statute pertaining to attorneys ad litem. The court’s amending order is also being challenged. We (a) affirm the order prohibiting the representation of the Ward by attorneys from the law firm of James A. Freeman & Associates P.C., and (b) vacate the order appointing Mr. Robbins and the later order purporting to amend the order of appointment. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Elijah B., et al.
Eric B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights with respect to his two minor children. The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) petitioned to terminate Father’s rights based upon allegations of abandonment, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Following a hearing, which Father failed to attend, the trial court granted the petition upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that all of the alleged grounds were established and that termination was in the best interest of the children. On appeal, Father asserts that his due process rights were violated. He also challenges the weight of the evidence supporting the court’s decision to terminate his parental rights. We reject both challenges. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Lindsay R.
This is an action to establish paternity and set child support filed by the State of Tennessee on behalf of Rochelle L. (“Mother”), the mother of a child born August 6, 1988. The putative father is James G. (“Father”). The trial court held Father liable for back child support of $123,334 by a default judgment entered September 3, 2008. Father filed a postjudgment motion challenging the judgment for lack of service of process. The trial court denied the motion upon finding that Father had “notice” of the action. As a consequence of this finding, the court held that the judgment was valid pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-305(b)(5)(2010). Father appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
William E. Jarvis v. State of Tennessee, ex rel, Janice L. Bane
Father previously convicted of contempt for failure to pay child support appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. Finding that the petition does not allege facts sufficient to support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sherry Watson v. Beazer Watson
This is a divorce action filed by Sherry Watson (“Wife”) against Beazer Watson (“Husband”). Following a bench trial, the court granted the parties a divorce based on stipulated grounds. It also classified and distributed substantial property, some as separate and the rest as marital. Wife secured new counsel and filed motions, with supporting exhibits, challenging the classification and division of property. The motions purport to be pursuant to, respectively, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.02. The trial court denied the motions. Wife appeals the denial of her motions. We affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Darren Perry and Mechelle Perry v. All Unknown Parties Having Any Interest in the Property Known as the Mathis Cemetery et al.
This appeal arises from a petition to terminate the use of property as a burial ground. The plaintiffs purchased property in which an abandoned cemetery was situated. They filed this complaint for court approval to terminate the use of the property as a burial ground and remove and reinter the remains to another cemetery, pursuant to Tennessee statutes. An attorney ad litem was appointed to represent unknown parties with an interest in the abandoned cemetery. The attorney ad litem investigated and did not oppose the relief sought. The plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court denied the motion for default judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appeal. We reverse. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Matter of Kaitlyn M.W., Nathan A.W. v. Crystal D.S.P.
This is a child custody case. The mother and father were never married to each other; the child was born when both were teenagers. Under the parenting plan, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent and the father had parenting time every weekend. After the father married, disputes ensued; many were disputes between the father’s wife and the child’s mother. The father filed a petition to modify the parenting plan to designate him as the child’s primary residential parent. He alleged, among other things, that the child was often tardy or absent from school, that the mother lacked stability, and that mother prevented him from exercising his parenting time. The trial court found no material change in circumstances and declined to change custody. The father appeals. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals |
