Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Alethea Skeen
This appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of a petition for an order of protection based upon allegations of stalking. This is one of four cases in which the petitioner sought an order of protection against four women. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition in this case. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Anthony
The Defendant, Andre Anthony, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct a clerical mistake pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Defendant contends that his two consecutive sentences at issue were originally ordered to run in a specific order but that the challenged corrected judgment forms indicate that each sentence runs consecutively to the other, in no particular order, and should once again be corrected. The State responds that the trial court correctly denied the Rule 36 motion because the order of the consecutive sentences is immaterial and because the corrected judgments accurately reflect the Defendant’s sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Alethea Skeen
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that this action has been “rendered moot” by the closure of the Bristol Regional Women’s Center in Bristol, Tennessee (“the Clinic”). Regarding the remaining issues on appeal, I concur with the majority’s holding that Petitioner Schanzenbach did not present sufficient evidence of stalking and that the trial court’s denial of her petition for order of protection shouldtherefore be affirmed. I also agree with the majority’s decision not to award damages to the respondent, Alethea Skeen, in the form of attorney’s fees. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Rowan Skeen
This appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of a petition for an order of protection based upon allegations of stalking. This is one of four cases in which the petitioner sought an order of protection against four women. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition in this case |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Rowan Skeen
THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Denise Skeen
This appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of a petition for an order of protection based upon allegations of stalking. This is one of four cases in which the petitioner sought an order of protection against four women. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition in this case. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Denise Skeen
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that this action has been “rendered moot” by the closure of the Bristol Regional Women’s Center in Bristol, Tennessee (“the Clinic”). Regarding the remaining issues on appeal, I concur with the majority’s holding that Petitioner Schanzenbach did not present sufficient evidence of stalking and that the trial court’s denial of her petition for order of protection should therefore be affirmed. I also agree with the majority’s decision not to award damages to the respondent, Denise Skeen, in the form of attorney’s fees. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Cheryl Hanzlik
This appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of a petition for an order of protection based upon allegations of stalking. This is one of four cases in which the petitioner sought an order of protection against four women. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition in this case. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Erika Jean Schanzenbach v. Cheryl Hanzlik
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that this action has been “rendered moot” by the closure of the Bristol Regional Women’s Center in Bristol, Tennessee (“the Clinic”). Regarding the remaining issues on appeal, I concur with the majority’s holding that Petitioner Schanzenbach did not present sufficient evidence of stalking and that the trial court’s denial of her petition for order of protection should therefore be affirmed. I also agree with the majority’s decision not to award damages to the respondent, Cheryl Hanzlik, in the form of attorney’s fees. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Tomlin, Individually, and d/b/a The Tomlin Company v. Nephrology Associates, P.C. Et Al.
A renal care company retained a broker to locate sites for new dialysis clinics. The company agreed to pay the broker a commission when leases were signed and “at the renewal or extension of said leases.” The company later negotiated amendments to the leases without the broker’s participation. The broker sued the company for breach of contract, alleging that he was due a commission on the lease amendments. The trial court determined that eight lease amendments were renewals or extensions of the original leases. And it entered a judgment against the company for the amount of the unpaid commissions. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the court’s finding that two of the lease amendments were renewals or extensions. So we affirm the judgment as modified. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Katelyn R. et al.
The Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) removed two children from their parents’ |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
Kari Dale Remus v. Brandon Joseph Nunn
In this post-divorce case, the husband filed a petition for declaratory judgment on the issue of whether a provision of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement concerning military retirement was modifiable. The trial court dismissed the husband’s petition on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ruled that the provision at issue was not modifiable. While we find that the trial court erred in granting the wife’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we affirm the result reached by the trial court on the merits of the dispute. Further, we have determined that the wife was not entitled to an additional award of attorney fees at trial and is not entitled to her attorney fees on appeal. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Sullivan County Tennessee Et Al. v. Amy S. Tochev Et Al.
A taxpayer failed to pay property taxes for a number of years. The county began enforcement proceedings and, following the entry of a default judgment against the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s property was ultimately sold at a delinquent tax sale. The purchaser filed a writ of possession to obtain possession of the property from the taxpayer, at which time the taxpayer filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and resulting tax sale. The taxpayer alleged lack of notice concerning the underlying delinquent tax proceedings and violation of her due |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Caprice McLemore Et Al. v. Knox County, Tennessee
Caprice McLemore, Gary McLemore, Misty Tanner, Barrett Tanner, and McKinley Tanner (together, “Plaintiffs” or “Appellants”) appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their case against the defendant, Knox County (“Appellee” or “the County”). Appellants were injured in a car accident on Clinton Highway after being struck by a vehicle driven by Roy Michael Simmons (“Mr. Simmons”), who was evading a Knox County sheriff’s deputy. Plaintiffs filed suit against the County, alleging that it was liable for their injuries arising from the accident. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the deputy pursuing Mr. Simmons did not act unreasonably under the circumstances and that the County was thus not liable for Plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs timely appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Porter v. Amber Phillips, Director of Sentence Management Services, Tennessee Department of Correction
Gary Porter (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the Davidson County Chancery Court (the |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cecil Cemontaie Burnice
Cecil Cemontaie Burnice, Defendant, claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation based on new criminal charges of aggravated robbery and criminal trespass because Defendant was subsequently found not guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and the State dismissed the criminal trespass count We determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Defendant’s probation based on the evidence presented at the revocation hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Dakari M.
A mother and a father appeal the termination of their parental rights. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of four statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights and five statutory grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights. The court also determined termination was in the child’s best interest. After a thorough review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Travis Jason Vandenberg v. Ashley Kay Vandenberg
This appeal arises from a divorce after a short marriage. The husband appeals from the ruling of |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamieum Alvin Reid
Defendant, Jamieum Alvin Reid, was indicted by a Madison County Grand Jury for |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jaylun Malik Currie
A Tipton County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for especially aggravated kidnapping, |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick M. Malone v. James William Rose, et al
This matter concerns prior restraint on speech. Patrick M. Malone (“Father”) is a party to |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne Haddix d/b/a 385 Ventures v. Jayton Stinson, et al.
This appeal arises from a breach of contract action wherein the appellee was directed to deposit funds owed to the appellant with the Clerk and Master. The appellee claimed an interest in some of the deposited funds pursuant to a separate contract. The trial court granted a default judgment in favor of the appellee for the requested amount. Because the appellant failed to comply with the briefing requirements set out in Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Gause a/k/a Bebop
The Defendant, Antonio D. Gause, was convicted by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury of two counts of first degree felony murder under alternate theories; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and accessory after the fact, a Class E felony. After merging the felony murder convictions, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction, twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and two years for the accessory after the fact conviction, for an effective sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Lachion W. Et Al.
This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 3, 2023. The notice of appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until December 8, 2023, more than thirty days after the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Demetrius Adkisson a/k/a Antonio Demetrius Turner, Jr.
A Gibson County jury convicted the defendant, Antonio Demetrius Adkisson a/k/a Antonio Demetrius Turner, Jr., of two counts of second-degree murder, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the juvenile court erred in transferring the defendant to circuit court and (2) that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s statement. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals |