Opinions
In Re Juanita M.
In this action to terminate parental rights, the mother, father, and child all tested positive for methamphetamine. Accordingly, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took the child into protective custody, and the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected. Despite completing many of DCS’s requirements, the mother and father continued to fail drug tests. DCS filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the trial court determined that three grounds supported termination as to both parents: (1) persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal, (2) severe child abuse, and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume physical custody of or financial responsibility for the child. The trial court also concluded that termination of both parents’ rights was in the child’s best interest. Both parents have appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Juanita M.-Dissent
I concur with most of the majority’s analysis of the grounds for termination of the parents’ parental rights. However, I disagree with the finding of severe abuse by the father and I disagree that the best interests of the child require termination. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Lavon Ford v. April Corrine Ford
This appeal arises from a divorce with minor children. Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s designation of Appellee/Father as the primary residential parent of the parties’ youngest children. Discerning no error, we affirm. Both parties request awards of appellate attorney’s fees, which are denied.
|
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
TRAVIS SAXTON v. JESSICA SAXTON
A self-represented party seeks accelerated interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying her motion seeking disqualification of the trial court judge. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE JACOB E. ET AL.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on March 26, 2024. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until October 12, 2025, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellants are seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Bentley E.
Mother and Stepfather petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. The trial court found two grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. This Court reversed the finding of grounds, but the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the ground of abandonment by failure to support and remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of additional findings as to the best interest analysis. On remand, the trial court again found that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE GIAVANNA K.
In this parental termination case, the trial court found that one ground for termination of the mother’s parental rights had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but failed to make findings of fact to support this conclusion. We vacate and remand for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by statute. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
John Winder v. Kenneth Woods, et al.
This appeal concerns a dismissal for lack of service of process. The trial court determined that appellant failed to properly effectuate service and comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlikka Jordan
The Defendant, Marlikka Jordan, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and aggravated child neglect, a Class A felony, for which she is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence in confinement. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2025) (subsequently amended) (aggravated child abuse and neglect). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s injuries observed on or about August 1, 2020, and that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Ava M. et al.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to two of her children. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on the findings that the petitioner, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, had proven the ground of severe abuse and that it was in the best interests of the children that the mother’s parental rights be terminated. The mother appeals, contending that the finding that termination was in the best interests of the children was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin Hartshaw v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Benjamin Hartshaw, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacqueline Adams v. Finis Fields
A jury in a personal injury case awarded damages that were significantly lower than the plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was below the range of reasonableness and indicative of an improper compromise. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
VITTORIO CAFINI v. GARRY KING
This is an action to recover damages for purported breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied duty of indemnity, and fraud in construction of a home. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
CLPF the Club LLC d/b/a The Club at Hickory Hollow v. Michelle Okoreehbaah Keister et al.
A tenant appeals an order granting a landlord possession of real property. Because the order does not dispose of the landlord’s claim for damages or the tenant’s counterclaim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Locke v. Lolita Locke
The defendant appeals from an order granting the plaintiff possession of real property. Because the order appealed does not dispose of the plaintiff’s claim for damages, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE W. WALLS, JR.
In this action involving construction of a last will and testament, the trial court granted a beneficiary’s motion to compel distribution of two parcels of real property upon finding that the decedent had devised the parcels to the movant in his will. The trial court entered an agreed order staying execution of the judgment pending appeal. The executor of the decedent’s estate has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. However, we modify the judgment to (1) stay transfer of title to the subject real properties until pending motions and the issue of the estate’s solvency have been resolved and (2) extend the conditions provided in the agreed order staying execution until such resolution has been accomplished. We deny the executor’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses incurred on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE HARPER A., ET AL.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother to her two children. The juvenile court found that four grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The mother appeals. We affirm in part and vacate in part. We remand for entry of an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to care for the children and the factors concerning the best interests of the children. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
MAWULE TEPE v. CONNOR MCCARTHY BLAIR ET AL.
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by the plaintiff, Mawule Tepe (“Plaintiff”), seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. After diligent review of the materials submitted on appeal, we vacate an order and a pre-filing injunction entered by the trial court while the recusal motion was pending. The trial court’s denial of the recusal motions is affirmed in all other respects. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Keith Dessinger v. Sally McIver
This is the third recusal appeal filed by the pro se petitioner relative to the underlying consolidated cases. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated a basis for recusal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the motion to recuse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rodger Broadway v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al.
The trial court dismissed a prisoner’s petition for a writ of certiorari on the basis that no verified petition was timely filed. On appeal, the prisoner concedes that his verified petition was filed at least one day late but contends that this Court should adopt an exception permitting the late filing due to obstruction by prison staff that prevented the prisoner from filing a timely verified petition. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Zachary Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Zachary Thompson, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he failed to establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Austin Drummond
This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s application for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order transferring the Defendant to the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) for safekeeping prior to trial. The Defendant argues that the trial court lacked statutory authorization to transfer a pretrial detainee to TDOC custody or, alternatively, that the facts of this case do not support such a transfer. The State has filed a response in opposition, arguing that the trial court has not so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review. We conclude that extraordinary review is “necessary for complete determination of the action on appeal.” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a)(2). Therefore, we hereby GRANT the Defendant’s application for extraordinary appeal. However, further briefing and argument are not required. See Tenn. R. App. P. 10(d). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Katherine Wehr Johnson v. Dustin Faeder
This appeal stems from an extension and modification of an order of protection. Upon motion by Appellee, the trial court extended the initial order of protection between the parties for one year and modified the terms of the order. Appellant challenges the extension on procedural, statutory, and constitutional grounds. After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s extension and modification of the order of protection. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Raul Martinez v. Davids Group, LLC
The appellee sustained severe injuries after falling off of a ladder at his job. The appellee was performing work on a building owned by the appellant when the accident occurred, and he claims the ladder was owned by the appellant. The appellant’s workers’ compensation policy had lapsed and was not in effect at the time of the accident. The appellee filed a common law tort action against the appellant. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the appellee a judgment of $471,038.36. We conclude that the trial court erred in calculating the appellee’s damages for lost wages and future lost earning capacity and modify the trial court’s judgment to correct such error. We also remand this case to the trial court for consideration of whether the appellee is entitled to an award of noneconomic damages. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keion Lamonte Jemison
Defendant, Keion Lamonte Jemison, appeals from his convictions for reckless homicide, aggravated assault resulting in death, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence, for which he is serving an effective twenty-three-year sentence. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, arguing that aggravated assault by recklessness is not included in the statutory definition of a “crime of violence.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |