Ovalla Jobe v. Goodwill Industries Of Middle Tennessee, Inc., Et Al.
This appeal involves a premises liability suit filed by a customer of a Goodwill store after the customer sat on an item of furniture that was for sale and it collapsed. The trial court granted summary judgment to Goodwill, finding no genuine issue of material fact and concluding that Goodwill did not create or have actual or constructive knowledge of any alleged defect. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Lorna Gibson v. Charles Bikas
Appellant sought disqualification of the trial court judge pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Charles D. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Charles D. Johnson, appeals the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which the Petitioner argued that he was never indicted on his convicted offense. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the dismissal of his petition in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Danny Anderson, appeals the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and the interest of justice does not support waiver of the timely filing requirement. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Ryan
After entering guilty pleas to four counts of aggravated statutory rape, Defendant, Thomas A. Ryan, was sentenced to four years for each conviction. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of sixteen years and denied all forms of alternative sentencing. Defendant appeals his sentence to this Court. Because we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to an effective sentence of sixteen years, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Odell Osborne v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Odell Osborne, appeals the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2015 convictions for three counts of failure to appear, misdemeanor theft, and felony theft and his effective nine-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leopold Mpawinayo v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Leopold Mpawinayo, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2015 convictions for two counts of violating the habitual motor vehicle offender (HMVO) law and his effective six-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying relief because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nelson Troglin
Defendant, Nelson Troglin, appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence for his 2000 conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 23 years. Defendant contends the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quintis McCaleb
The State, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, appeals the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress inculpatory statements made during his post-polygraph interview. The trial court found that the statements were voluntary but determined that they were inadmissible under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403 because Defendant would be required to reference the polygraph examination to provide context for Defendant’s statements made during the post-polygraph interview. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the statements, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy Moutry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Quincy Moutry, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for carjacking, aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony and his effective twenty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephanie Keller, et al v. Estate of Edward Stephen McRedmond, et al
Sibling shareholders, unable to agree on the management of the family business, brought their dispute to court. Eventually, the brothers and sisters agreed that the business should be dissolved and, under the court’s supervision, sold as a going concern. After soliciting bids from the siblings, the court approved the sale of the business’s assets to one brother and two of his sisters. Pending the closing, the court ordered the siblings to continue to operate the business as usual and to preserve the goodwill of the business, including the relationships with employees, suppliers, and customers. The day after the closing, the brother who was not part of the winning bidder group opened a competing business. The winning bidders sought damages from the competing sibling, claiming that he willfully violated court orders, breached his fiduciary duty, and intentionally interfered with business relations. After a bench trial, the court awarded the winning bidders compensatory damages in an aggregate amount for all claims. In the first appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the winning bidders’ claims were derivative, not direct, and thus they lacked standing. In Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, 495 S.W.3d 852, 877 (Tenn. 2016), our supreme court adopted a new standard for determining whether a shareholder claim is direct or derivative and, applying that standard, held that the winning bidders had standing to pursue their claim that the competing sibling violated the court’s orders. So our supreme court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to this Court to review the remaining issues that were properly raised but not addressed in the first appeal. Id. at 882-83. We affirm the trial court’s decision to hold the competing sibling in contempt, but we vacate the aggregate award of compensatory damages. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ayden S., Et Al.
Parents appeal the termination of parental rights to their three children. The juvenile court found three statutory grounds for termination: substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the children. The court also found that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We conclude the evidence of the statutory grounds for termination was less than clear and convincing. Thus, we reverse the termination of the parents’ parental rights. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Lynn Mosier
The Defendant, Jennifer Lynn Mosier, entered a nolo contendere plea to DUI in the Madison County Circuit Court and was sentenced to 11 months, 29 days in the county jail, suspended after 48 hours. As a condition of her guilty plea, she attempted to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) regarding the validity of the arrest warrant. Because we agree with the State that the Defendant failed to comply with the strict requirements for properly certifying a question of law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonardo Williams
The pro se Defendant, Leonardo Williams, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct an Illegal Sentence.” Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ray Brown v. Robert L. Bushnell
This is a malicious prosecution case. The trial court found that the Appellant committed the torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Appellant argues that there was no material evidence to support the trial court’s inference of malice. Appellant also questions the trial court’s failure to address the mandatory element of probable cause. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ethan W., Et Al.
The Department of Children Services initiated a proceeding to declare the three minor children of Mother and Father dependent and neglected following the discovery of a sexual relationship between two of the children. The Juvenile Court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected, as did the circuit court in a de novo hearing on appeal. Upon our review, we conclude the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the children were dependent and neglected; accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Baskins
The defendant, John Baskins, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of rape of a child and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, claiming that the trial court erred in the misapplication of an enhancement factor and that the 40-year sentence imposed was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason C. Blosser v. Cyrus Johnson, IV d/b/a The River City Rides
This appeal deals only with the trial court’s award of treble damages pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah Lacy v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Et Al.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to one of several defendants. Because the order does not dispose of the plaintiff’s claims against all of the defendants, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sumner County, Tennessee v. Susan Small-Hammer
The defendant appeals the imposition of a security interest in her home. The defendant’s home, which was destroyed by floods in May of 2010, was demolished and reconstructed with funds the defendant applied for through the HOME Program administered by Sumner County. In applying for the financing, the defendant agreed to “comply with the HOME Program rules and regulations if assistance is approved,” one of which was that she must sign a note and deed of trust to secure the repayment obligation. After the defendant repeatedly refused to sign a note and deed of trust, Sumner County filed this action. Sumner County subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment that was properly supported by a statement of undisputed facts pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56. Because the defendant did not file a response to the motion or the statement of undisputed facts, and the undisputed facts established that Sumner County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court granted Sumner County’s motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ethan B.
A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her son on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. Mother appeals, arguing that the termination of her rights is not supported by the record. After a thorough review, we conclude that the proof does not clearly and convincingly establish that Mother willfully failed to visit or support the child. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the petition for termination. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Lee Miller v. David Mark Miller, II
This appeal involves a parent’s obligation to pay college expenses for her son. After the parties’ divorce proceeding, various orders and parenting plans were entered reflecting the parties’ agreement to share equally their children’s college expenses at the University of Tennessee. The trial court found that the parties subsequently reached an agreement that resulted in the oldest child deferring his enrollment for one semester, but that the agreement did not terminate or excuse the parties’ existing obligation to share college expenses upon enrollment. The trial court found the mother in civil contempt for refusing to pay the college expenses and awarded a monetary judgment to the father for the unpaid expenses. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kendall M.
Kendall M. was born in January 2016; she tested positive for amphetamines at birth and was placed in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where she was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome and suffered from withdrawal symptoms. Upon her release from the hospital, she was placed with foster parents, in whose care she has remained. A proceeding to have her declared dependent and neglected was initiated by the Department of Children’s Services and permanency plans developed in May and October of 2016. In March of 2017 the Department filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Kendall’s Mother on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; following a hearing, the court granted the petition and terminated Mother’s rights on both grounds. Mother appeals the termination of her rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans and the holding that termination of her rights was in the best interest of Kendall. Upon our review, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of her rights on both grounds, and the finding that termination of Mother’s rights is in Kendall’s best interest; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Graham Clark, et al. v. Timothy Curtis Johnson
In this case involving grandparent visitation, the petitioners, Graham Clark and Marisa Clark (“Grandparents”), filed a petition in the Sullivan County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”) in November 2016, approximately thirteen months after the death of their daughter, Megan Clark Johnson (“Mother”), who was the mother of the four minor children at issue here. Naming the children’s father, Timothy Curtis Johnson (“Father”) as the respondent, Grandparents averred that the children were dependent and neglected due to the death of Mother in October 2015 and an allegedly severe reduction in Grandparents’ visitation with the children since December 2015. The case was subsequently transferred to the Sullivan County Chancery Court (“trial court”), with Grandparents having given notice to Father that they were seeking relief in the form of grandparent visitation. The trial court thereafter treated the petition as one for grandparent visitation. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a temporary order directing that Grandparents would enjoy unsupervised visitation with the children on alternate weekends. Following a subsequent bench trial, the trial court granted visitation to Grandparents upon finding that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 36-6-306 and -307 (2017) (collectively, the “Grandparent Visitation Statute”), their visitation and relationship with the children had been severely reduced over several months prior to the petition’s filing and that such reduction posed a risk of substantial emotional harm to the children. Also finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant Grandparents a set visitation schedule, the trial court ordered overnight visitation one weekend a month and two additional nights monthly, as well as one week’s uninterrupted visitation in the summer and the sharing of major holidays. Father timely appealed. Having determined that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the reduction in Grandparents’ visitation and relationship with the children in the months preceding the petition’s filing met the statutory definition of a severe reduction, we reverse. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Wayne Gilbert
The defendant, Ronald Wayne Gilbert, appeals his Sevier County Criminal Court jury convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, challenging both the trial court’s denial of his motion to strike the victim’s testimony and his motion to dismiss based upon the failure to preserve certain evidence. We affirm the convictions and sentence but remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals |