Vickey J. Cowan v. Jimmy Cowan
This appeal concerns the division of marital property, and an award of alimony entered as part of a final decree of divorce. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to both subjects and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
James Travis Dover v. Hanna Norris Dover
This accelerated interlocutory appeal is taken from the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for recusal. Because there is no evidence of bias that would require recusal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Heather Danielle Radar Blount v. James Edward Blount
This is an appeal from a three-day divorce trial in which both parties presented expert testimony regarding how to calculate the husband’s income for purposes of paying support. The husband raises nine issues on appeal regarding proof of marital fault, the valuation of marital property, and the alimony and attorney fees awarded to the wife. For the following reasons, we vacate in part and affirm the decision of the trial court as modified. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey August Tate and Steven Ogle
Defendants, Jeffrey August Tate and Steven Ogle, were indicted in separate cases for multiple counts of theft of property and home construction fraud involving separate victims. Before trial, both Defendants filed motions to dismiss the home construction fraud counts in their respective indictments, alleging that a portion of the home construction fraud statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-154(b)(1), was unconstitutionally vague on its face, and Defendant Tate also argued that the statute was vague as applied to him. Following a joint hearing on both Defendants’ motions, the trial court concluded that the home construction fraud statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The State appealed both Defendants’ cases pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), and this court consolidated the appeals. We conclude that the State does not have an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(c) because the record does not reflect that the substantive effect of the trial court’s order resulted in the dismissal of the indictments. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul L. Foutner
Paul L. Foutner, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder, three counts of attempted |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl E. Swann v. City of Kingsport
The appellee filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of a decision from the board of zoning appeals. Having determined that the petition did not comply with certain statutory requirements, we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to take up the writ. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order, and remand for the entry of an order of dismissal. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacob Wyatt Allen
Jacob Wyatt Allen, Defendant, appeals from the revocation of judicial diversion after subsequent arrests for driving under the influence, aggravated criminal trespass, driving on a revoked license, driving under the influence, violation of the motorcycle helmet law, and violation of an ignition interlock system. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the revocation of judicial diversion. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vidafuel, Inc. v. Kerry, Inc.
This is a case involving a contractual relationship between sophisticated business entities in which the Plaintiff-Appellant agreed to order beverage products manufactured by the Defendant-Appellee. The delivered products were nonconforming, and the Plaintiff-Appellant thereafter filed suit asserting common law tort claims and alleging violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Upon motion of the Defendant-Appellee, however, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. As part of its order of dismissal, the trial court held that the asserted common law tort claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine and ruled that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim was barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeromy Tyson Ratcliff v. Melody Leann Ratcliff Neal
In this child support dispute, the mother filed a petition to extend child support for an adult child due to the child’s severe disability. The father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order determining that the parties’ adult son was severely disabled and directing the father to pay child support “going forward” and retroactively. The father sought to amend the final judgment, again raising the issue of the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and also requesting that the final order be set aside until the child could undergo a vocational evaluation. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend. The father has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. Upon consideration, we decline the mother’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Tremaine Mitchell
The Defendant, Brian Tremaine Mitchell, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and received a total effective sentence of two consecutive life terms plus seventeen years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements into evidence as dying declarations, (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the statements as dying declarations, (4) the trial court erred by refusing to suppress his Facebook records from evidence, (5) the trial court erred by allowing his jailhouse statements and internet searches into evidence, (6) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that one of the victims was selling drugs and might have been intoxicated at the time of the crimes, and (7) he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary E. Brown
Defendant, Gary E. Brown, was indicted by a Knox County Grand Jury in case number |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy T. Lewis v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Roy T. Lewis, appeals from the Robertson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following a hearing, in which Petitioner alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because trial counsel did not inform him of his offender classification. Following a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shoshanna Cabanting
A Hancock County Jury convicted the Defendant, Shoshanna Cabanting, of vandalism of |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alexis Danielle Rapp v. Christopher George Rapp
This case stems from a mother’s request to relocate outside the state with the parties’ minor child. The father filed a petition opposing relocation, and a trial was held on the matter. The trial court determined that allowing relocation was not in the child’s best interests and granted the father’s petition. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Terrance Williams, of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Davidson
Defendant, Kevin Davidson, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probationary |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Seth Holliday v. Elizabeth Frances Holliday
In this divorce action, the trial court distributed the parties’ assets and liabilities, determined the amount of the husband’s child support obligation with regard to the parties’ two children, and awarded alimony in futuro to the wife. The husband timely appealed. Upon our thorough review, we vacate and remand to the trial court the issues of the husband’s child support and alimony obligations for further determination. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquis Rashum McReynolds
The Defendant, Marquis Rashum McReynolds, was convicted by a Roane County Criminal |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Lee Bragg, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Gary Lee Bragg, Jr., claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amy Upton
The Defendant, Amy Upton, pleaded guilty to four counts of drug-related offenses after |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fairway Capital Partners, LLC v. Tamaryn Gause, et al.
The assignee of a contract for the sale of real property appeals the dismissal of its claims against a third party for civil conspiracy to commit breach of contract, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and statutory inducement of breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant third party based on its conclusion that the third party had no notice of the contract at issue and did not act maliciously. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Samuel Forrester Hunter v. Winnie Sue Cooper
After declaring the parties divorced, the trial court fashioned a permanent parenting plan for their minor child. The plan designated the mother as the primary residential parent and gave the father 80 days of parenting time each year. The father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting a parenting plan that failed to maximize his parenting time. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Christopher Walton v. Rebecca Guess Walton
In this post-divorce matter, the parties dispute the interpretation of a provision of their marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) concerning one of Husband’s retirement plans. On the parties’ cross petitions to enforce the MDA, the trial court found the MDA to be unambiguous and agreed with Wife’s interpretation of the disputed provision. Discerning no error, we affirm. Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is granted pursuant to the terms of the MDA; her request for frivolous appeal damages is denied. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Parker v. Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development
Appellant appeals the chancery court’s decision to affirm the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s determination that he was overpaid unemployment benefits. Because we have determined that the appellant failed to comply with the applicable rules regarding appellate briefing, we dismiss this appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Rodzell Lamont Mason v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rodzell Lamont Mason, appeals the summary dismissal as time-barred of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (2022), did not establish a new constitutional right applicable to his case that would allow his claim, filed more than thirteen years after his judgment became final, to be considered. Based on our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |