Kip Harold Roby v. Teresa Coakley Roby
This case arises out of the demise of a long-term marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct and, after finding the wife economically disadvantaged, awarded her transitional alimony for a duration of 12 years. The husband appeals the final decree of absolute divorce solely on the issue of alimony. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the trial court did not err in awarding alimony, nor did it err in the amount or duration of its award. However, we modify the court’s award of transitional alimony to an award of alimony in futuro. We affirm in all other respects. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Tommy Lynn Lawson et al. v. Knoxville Dermatology Group, P.C. et al.
The plaintiffs initiated this health care liability action against two defendant medical providers, a dermatology practice and a certified physician’s assistant employed by the practice. The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, with each respectively asserting that the plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for failure to substantially comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), which provides that a pre-suit medical authorization must be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice upon finding that the medical authorization forwarded by the plaintiffs was incomplete and failed to substantially comply with HIPAA’s release requirements. The plaintiffs have appealed solely the dismissal of the health care liability claim against the dermatology practice. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Isiah Hopps, Jr. v. Jacquelyn F. Stinnes
This is a health care liability action in which a patient alleged that an emergency room nurse practitioner violated the applicable standard of care in her treatment of him by failing to order proper tests and failing to perform a proper examination. The case was tried before a jury for three days. At the close of proof, the trial court granted a partial directed verdict in favor of the Appellee, dismissing Appellant’s claims that Appellee breached the standard of care by not ordering a CT scan. The court also refused to allow the jury to consider whether Appellant’s vision loss was due to Appellee’s negligence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Angel M., et al.
This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of the mother and father of two minor children. The trial court held that the parents were in substantial noncompliance with three permanency plans, primarily for drug abuse and the failure to seek treatment, and subsequently terminated the parental rights of each. Both parents appeal. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re B.B., et al.
In this dependency and neglect case, A.L.B. (father) reported to DCS that K.J.B. (mother) had physically abused their daughter, B.E.B. (child 1). After investigating the alleged abuse, DCS filed a petition to declare child 1 and her brother, B.A.B. (child 2) (collectively the children), dependent and neglected in mother’s care. The Montgomery County Juvenile Court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected. Mother appealed to the trial court. That court found clear and convincing evidence of abuse. Accordingly, the court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel D. Hall et al. v. Eagle Rock Development, LLC et al.
This case involves misrepresentations allegedly made to a husband and wife, purchasers of real estate. On June 16, 2006, Daniel D. Hall and Julie K. Hall executed a contract to purchase lot 25 in the Preserve at English Mountain (the Preserve). On June 30, 2006, the transaction closed. In November 2009, the Halls learned, for the first time, that public sewage disposal was not available to lot 25. Because of this deficiency, the Halls were restricted, against their wishes, to a dwelling with only two bedrooms. On December 14, 2012, based upon the misrepresentation that lot 25 would have access to public sewage disposal, the Halls filed a complaint against various entities and individuals involved in the sale. Refusing to pierce the corporate veil as to individual defendants Phillip Joseph and Daniel L. Barnett, the trial court dismissed all of the individual defendants and some of the other defendants. The court found material misrepresentations and granted the Halls rescission of the purchase contract and a refund of $123,000. In addition, the court awarded the Halls attorney’s fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against Blue Ridge Realty, Inc. (Blue Ridge) predicated upon the failure of the Halls’ agent to disclose that he was a member of the entity selling the property. Eagle Rock Development, LLC (Eagle Rock) and Blue Ridge (collectively the entity defendants) appeal. We affirm |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Lynette Baker
The defendant, Susan Lynette Baker, appeals her Sequatchie County Circuit Court jury convictions of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and setting fire to personal property, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the pretrial statement she provided to the police, the evidence of her theft of property from the victim’s residence, and the surveillance video from a motel; that the trial court erred by denying her motion to sever the arson charge from the remaining charges; that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery; and that “the very nature” of the felony murder statute violates principles of due process. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fred Chad Clark, II v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Fred Chad Clark, II, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely, and the State concedes the issue. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mandrell Sanders
The Defendant, Mandrell Sanders, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred in denying his request for probation. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Turner
A jury convicted the Defendant, Rodney Turner, of two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions. State v. Rodney Turner, No. W2012-01930-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 6706092, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 18, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 23, 2014). The Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking a delayed appeal and an opportunity to file a delayed motion for new trial. The post-conviction court granted a delayed motion for new trial and, after a motion for new trial hearing, denied the Defendant’s motion. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial, maintaining that the trial court erred by not requiring the State to produce state witness Officer Brian Falatko’s prior statement. He further asserts that this statement is newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Miles v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph Miles, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, asserting that newly discovered evidence entitled him to relief. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deann Anelia Walls
Defendant, Deann Anelia Walls, appeals the trial court’s order requiring her to serve in confinement her effective ten-year sentence resulting from her guilty plea to nineteen counts of prescription medication fraud and thirty-six counts of identity theft. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arnekio Jackson
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury found the Appellant, Arnekio Jackson, guilty of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by intentionally introducing evidence that the trial court had ruled was inadmissible and that without the evidence, the proof was insufficient to establish the Appellant’s identity and sustain his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karloss Thirkill and Rico Huey
After a jury trial, the defendants, Karloss Thirkill and Rico Huey, were convicted of aggravated robbery, and this joint appeal followed. On appeal, Huey challenges the trial court’s partial denial of his motion to suppress. Thirkill challenges the trial court’s denial of his request to impeach a fact witness and accomplice under Rules 404 and 608 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Dockery v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Antonio Dockery, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated assault and stalking and resulting effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner raises various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jennifer L. Al-Athari, et al. v. Luis A. Gamboa, et al.
Following two appeals, this negligence action was resolved in a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict finding for Defendant; Plaintiffs appealed and, discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwain Deshun Coleman, AKA Antwain Mackey
Defendant, Antwain Deshun Coleman, also known as Antwain Mackey, was indicted for aggravated robbery. He later entered a negotiated guilty plea to facilitation of aggravated robbery in exchange for a sentence of six years as a Range I, standard offender. The trial court determined that Defendant should serve the sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying an alternative sentence. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martin Goss v. Frankey Goss
The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Martin Goss, states that the appellant is appealing from a judgment entered on March 7, 2017. However, there is no final judgment in the proceedings below and the case remains pending in the Trial Court. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
George Hollowell v. David Prater, et al.
This case involves a boundary line dispute. The trial court adopted Appellee’s surveyor’s map and set the common boundary between the parties’ property in accordance with the original grantors’ intent to deed Appellants 25 acres to have land that would allow their property to have access to the existing public road. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Carroll | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth L. Jakes v. Sumner County Board Of Education
This appeal involves a request to inspect public records pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-101, et seq. The plaintiff filed suit when his request to inspect the records policy for the Sumner County Board of Education was denied because he failed to make his request by mail or in person. The plaintiff sought attorney fees and requested a show cause hearing and a declaratory judgment, requiring the defendant to accept requests to inspect public records made by email, facsimile, telephone, or other similar methods. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment. Following a hearing, the court held that the request, made by email and again by telephone, was compliant with the Tennessee Public Records Act and that the defendant’s refusal to provide said records was unlawful. The court further found the defendant’s policy for accepting public record requests in violation of the Tennessee Public Records Act. The court denied the request for attorney fees. The defendant appeals. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth L. Jakes v. Sumner County Board Of Education - Concurring
I concur in the decision to affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court for Sumner County. I write separately to address the trial court’s grant of the protective order, which prevented the parties from conducting further discovery, and the court’s decision not to treat the March 31, 2014, email from the appellee, Kenneth Jakes, as a valid public record request under the Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”). |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Mya V.
This appeal involves the termination of two parents’ parental rights to their daughter. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that four grounds for termination existed with regard to the father and six grounds existed with regard to the mother. The trial court also found it to be in the child’s best interest to terminate parental rights. Mother and Father appealed, raising the issues of whether grounds existed for termination and whether it was in the child’s best interest to terminate. After reviewing the evidence, we reverse the trial court’s finding regarding one ground for termination asserted against Mother, but we otherwise affirm the trial court’s order as to Mother and affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights. Based on a jurisdictional defect, we dismiss the appeal as to Father. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Howard McAbee v. Crown Automotive Group, Inc., Et Al.
Howard McAbee (“Employee”) was employed by Crown Automotive Group, Incorporated, (“Employer”), as a courtesy van driver. On August 2, 2013, Employee sustained injuries to his hip when he fell to the ground during a scuffle with a co-worker. After the scuffle, Employer fired Employee and his co-worker. Employer denied Employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits asserting the injury did not arise out of the employment and the injury was caused by Employee’s misconduct. The trial court found that the injury was compensable as it arose out of and in the course of employment and that Employee was permanently and totally disabled. The trial court ordered Employer to pay Employee’s permanent disability benefits in a lump sum. Employer has appealed contending, the trial court erred by finding the case compensable; finding Employee permanently and totally disabled rather than limiting the award based on the statutory cap when there was misconduct; awarding a lump sum payment; and ordering Employer to pay medical expenses. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Day
The defendant, Charles Edward Day, appeals his Anderson County Circuit Court jury conviction of reckless aggravated assault, claiming that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at trial, that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the sentence imposed was excessive, and that the cumulative effect of these errors prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larrystine Bates v. Michael J. Greene, et al.
This appeal involves the appropriate statute of limitations applicable to a claim against an insurance company for uninsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff-driver filed this lawsuit against the defendant-driver but was unable to serve him with the civil warrant despite repeated attempts. Over a year after the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff had an additional alias civil warrant issued adding her insurer as the uninsured motorist carrier, and she served the amended civil warrant on the insurer. The insurer moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim against the insurer in accordance with her uninsured motorist coverage arose out of the alleged negligence of the uninsured motorist, and therefore, it was governed by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims. Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer based on the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. Finding the one-year statute of limitations inapplicable, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |