Benjamin McCurry v. Agness McCurry
This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a petition for emergency custody and its |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anthony Wade v. Biobele Georgewill
Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment finding that she breached a contract and |
Court of Appeals | ||
William Burkett Et Al. v. Julia Cris Stevens
This appeal concerns the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. A number of property owners (“Plaintiffs”) in the German Creek Cabin Site Subdivision sued fellow property owner Julia Cris Stevens (“Defendant”) in the Circuit Court for Grainger County (“the Trial Court”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to prevent Defendant from completing a 400 square foot structure on her lot as it would constitute a second dwelling on the original lot in contravention of a restrictive covenant. The Trial Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor, ordering Defendant to remove the structure and granting permanent injunctive relief. Defendant appeals. She argues, among other things that it is inequitable to require her to remove the structure. She also contends that it is not a dwelling. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Sarrah Willhite v. Jeremy Willhite
This is an appeal from a final order entered on November 23, 2022. The Notice of Appeal |
Court of Appeals | ||
Albert Fuqua v. The Robertson County Election Commission et al.
Appellant filed this action against his local election commission seeking to prevent a candidate from being placed on the ballot of the August 4, 2022 Robertson County election for circuit court clerk. We dismiss this appeal as moot. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Paige
Defendant, Carl Paige, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder and agreed to an eight-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to a term of eight years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to suspend his sentence to probation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clarence Mitchell, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, et al.
Plaintiffs brought suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stuart Richard James, III v. Stephanie Lynne James
This is a post-divorce dispute. Two primary issues are presented, whether the trial court |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Ray Mullins
The Chester County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Jerry Ray Mullins, for the first-degree |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elizabeth Christmas v. John M. Kington
Elizabeth Christmas and John M. Kington were romantically involved for many years. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Spencer Brown
The defendant, Benjamin Spencer Brown, appeals the trial court’s imposition of |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sean Longmire
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Sean Longmire, of one count of first degree |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonia Andreana Smith v. Anthony Kenyatta Smith
In this divorce action, Wife appeals the trial court’s classification and distribution of assets, |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Johnson
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Johnson, of |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Stephen Carder
Defendant, James Stephen Carder, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for 36 counts of theft of property in amounts ranging from less than $1,000 to $60,000 and two counts of aggregate theft in an amount greater than $60,000 but less than $250,000. Five of the theft counts were dismissed after the close of the State’s proof, and a petit jury convicted Defendant of 24 theft counts and both aggregate theft counts. The trial court merged those individual theft convictions involving the same victim and also merged the two counts of aggregate theft, and the court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to an effective 20 years’ incarceration and ordered him to pay $134,990 in restitution. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that law enforcement improperly investigated the case and interfered with his contracts. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of amended judgment forms to reflect the merger of the 24 individual theft convictions into count 37, the one aggregate theft conviction. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Darrell Adkins v. Rhonda Forlaw Adkins
This is an appeal from a divorce decree that was initially entered in 2017, but the divorce action was not finalized until 2022. In this appeal, Wife argues that the trial court should not have divorced the parties because there were no valid grounds for divorce. Because the parties executed a valid marital dissolution agreement agreeing to be divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we affirm the trial court’s decision to declare the parties divorced. We modify the divorce decree, however, to provide that Wife is awarded the divorce on that ground, consistent with the parties’ agreement. We further award Husband his attorney’s fees as required under the marital dissolution agreement. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Rutan-Ram et al. v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services et al.
The plaintiffs, a prospective adoptive couple and six other Tennessee taxpayers, brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147, which allows private child-placing agencies that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based upon the agencies’ religious beliefs. A three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. We have determined that the plaintiffs have standing and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Paul Beech
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant, Rodney Paul Beech, pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”) and DUI per se and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation after service of forty-eight hours in jail. As a condition of his plea, the defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop of his vehicle. Upon our review, we conclude the defendant failed to properly certify the question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Erick Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Erick Bailey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack Mandrell Loyde v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mack Mandrell Loyde, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenard Cortez Thorne v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Glenard Cortez Thorne, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Davidson County Criminal Court, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because newly discovered evidence exists in his case. After our review, we conclude the petition is untimely and does not present a cognizable claim for coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquette Benson a/ka/ Mukes
The pro se Defendant, Marquette Benson, aka Marquette Mukes, appeals the summary |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Casey Dewayne Hodge
Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant, Casey DeWayne |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hilton Lee Chatman
Defendant, Hilton Lee Chatman, was charged in an eleven-count indictment on drugrelated offenses. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in Count 1; possession with intent to sell heroin in Count 3; possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense in Count 10; and possession of drug paraphernalia in Count 11. Defendant was found not guilty of the remaining seven counts of the indictment. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II offender to a total effective sentence of twenty-four years and six months. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, his sentence is excessive, his motion for new trial was erroneously denied, and the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure when it rejected his guilty plea. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis N. Etheredge et al. v. Estate of Doris Etheredge
A husband and wife each had multiple children from prior relationships. After their marriage, the husband and wife agreed to a contract that would control the distribution of their estates, with funds passing first to the surviving spouse and then to be distributed after the second spouse’s death among their children. Both husband and wife have since died. Husband’s children brought suit, arguing that the distribution of assets in husband’s final will is contrary to the contract. Awarding summary judgment to husband’s children in this declaratory judgment action, the trial court determined that the distribution of the husband’s estate is controlled by the terms of the contract. The wife’s estate appealed. We vacate and remand. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |