Mark A. Grant v. Kathy H. Grant
After a long-term marriage, the wife obtained a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court determined the value of the marital property, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife both alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. The husband appealed, arguing the court erred in valuing his ownership interests in three general partnerships, in dividing the marital estate, and in awarding the wife alimony. After reviewing the extensive record in this case, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
In re Estate of Lois Culp
This case involves the distribution of assets in a testamentary trust. The decedent’s will provided for her real property to be left in a trust established for the benefit of her children and grandchildren. After the will was admitted to probate, the trustee filed a petition seeking judicial authorization to sell the property to avoid reoccurring expenses and prevent waste. One of the beneficiaries submitted a response in which he asserted that he and all of the other beneficiaries opposed selling the property. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order in which it held that the will granted the trustee unrestricted authority to sell the property without judicial authorization if, in her best judgment, doing so would be in the beneficiaries’ best interest. The beneficiary appealed. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Mark A. Grant v. Kathy H. Grant
After a long-term marriage, the wife obtained a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court determined the value of the marital property, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife both alimony in futuro and alimony in solido. The husband appealed, arguing the court erred in valuing his ownership interests in three general partnerships, in dividing the marital estate, and in awarding the wife alimony. After reviewing the extensive record in this case, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmie D. Gulley d/b/a Kleen-Way Disposal v. Robertson County Planning & Zoning Commission
This is a zoning dispute arising out of a trash-collection business being operated in an agricultural-residential zone. The county planning and zoning commission determined that the business did not comply with existing zoning. The business owner sought review before the board of zoning appeals and, when the board affirmed the commission’s decision, filed a petition for certiorari review in chancery court, which held that the board’s action was not arbitrary and was supported by material evidence. We affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stevie Michael Irwin, Jr.
Defendant, Stevie Michael Irwin, Jr., was found guilty of two counts of rape of a child, two counts of attempted rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of incest. On appeal, Defendant challenges the failure of the State to properly elect offenses; the sufficiency of the evidence for the rape and attempted rape convictions; dual convictions for rape of a child in Counts One and Three as violating his right to due process; and his sentence as excessive. After a review of the record, and in light of the recent supreme court holding in State v. Qualls, 428 S.W.3d 1 (2016), we affirm the convictions and sentences. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carol Mooney, et al. v. Genuine Parts Company d/b/a National Automotive Association, Inc. ("NAPA"), et al.
This appeal arises out of a premises liability case involving a plaintiff who fell while exiting an auto parts store. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We affirm and remand for further proceedings |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
In re Jimmy B., Jr.
This is a termination of parental rights case. In May 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in Sevier County Juvenile Court seeking to terminate the parental rights of the child’s father. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate on the following grounds: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support; (2) severe child abuse; and (3) persistence of conditions. The juvenile court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests. Father appealed. We hold that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support termination on the grounds of abandonment for willful failure to support and persistence of conditions, and we reverse as to those grounds for termination. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demarcus Keyon Cole
The petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, acting pro se, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Ian B., et al
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment. The lack of a transcript prevents us from determining whether sufficient evidence supported the termination and denies Father proper appellate consideration of his claims. We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Richard H. Roberts, Commissioner, Department of Revenue
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marianne Greer v. Philip Ernest Cobble
This is the second appeal of this case involving the distribution of a marital estate. Appellant appeals the order denying him relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 60.02). Because the appellate record contains no transcript or statement of the evidence conveying an accurate and complete account of what transpired as required by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that the findings made by the trial court were based upon sufficient evidence. Affirmed and remanded. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Marcus Belton, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
Plaintiff/Appellant appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights claims based upon the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-104. Because Appellant's complaint, taken as true at the motion to dismiss stage, sufficiently alleges post-contract formation conduct on the part of the Defendants/Appellees, we conclude that the four-year federal catchall statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 applies to Appellant's claims in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of Appellant's civil rights claims and remand for further proceedings. Because Appellant did not designate the dismissal of his state law contract claims as issues on appeal, however, we affirm the dismissal of those claims. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Anderson Hatcher
The defendant, David Anderson Hatcher, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Blount County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated burglary. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Aaron T. James v. Shawn Phillips, Warden
The Petitioner, Aaron T. James, appeals as of right from the Morgan County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his judgment is void because his guilty plea to second degree murder was unknowing and involuntary. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph B. Thompson
The Appellant, Joseph B. Thompson, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that his motion stated a colorable claim for relief and that, therefore, the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth McCormick
We granted this appeal to reconsider our decision in State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 2013), which held that the community caretaking doctrine is not an exception to the federal and state constitutional warrant requirements. Having concluded that Moats was wrongly decided, we overrule Moats and hold that the community caretaking doctrine is analytically distinct from consensual police-citizen encounters and is instead an exception to the state and federal constitutional warrant requirements which may be invoked to validate as reasonable a warrantless seizure of an automobile. To establish that the community caretaking exception applies, the State must show that (1) the officer possessed specific and articulable facts, which, viewed objectively and in the totality of the circumstances, reasonably warranted a conclusion that a community caretaking action was needed; and (2) the officer’s behavior and the scope of the intrusion were reasonably restrained and tailored to the community caretaking need. We conclude, based on the proof in the record on appeal, that the community caretaking exception applies in this case. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals declining to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress are affirmed on the separate grounds stated herein. |
White | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Phillips, III
The defendant, Charles Edward Phillips, III, was convicted by a Benton County Circuit Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; interference with emergency communications, a Class A misdemeanor; and driving while license suspended, revoked, or cancelled, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court reduced the aggravated assault conviction to simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to an effective term of twelve years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the sentencing imposed by the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elyse J. Reid v. Rooms To Go, A Tennessee Corporation
Plaintiff who brought action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act appeals the dismissal of the case on statute of limitations grounds. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment dismissing the case. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ryan Robert Haase v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ryan Robert Haase, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Marshall County Circuit Court, alleging that his counsel were ineffective for failing to advise him correctly on his range classification and that as a result, he chose to reject a plea agreement and proceed to trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio L. Nelson
The Appellant, Antonio L. Nelson, pled nolo contendere in the Cheatham County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and two counts of theft of property valued over $1,000 but less than $10,000. The trial court sentenced the Appellant to a total effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the length of the individual sentences imposed by the trial court and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LLC, et al
After its closure, a Class II landfill continued to discharge contaminants into a creek that flowed into a lake located on adjoining property. Following years of investigations and multiple failed remedial measures, the landfill owner and the state agency with authority to direct landfill cleanup operations agreed that the most feasible, practical, and effective way to abate the discharge was for the landfill owner to divert water from entering the landfill and, over a four-year period, to remove and relocate the landfill waste. The neighboring landowner of the property on which the lake affected by the discharge was located objected to the plan, arguing that the landfill owner should also be required to treat or divert water leaving the landfill site. The Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board (“the Board”) heard the case and approved the landowner’s plan of action and did not require diversion of the water leaving the landfill. The neighboring landowner appealed, and the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court of Appeals, dissatisfied with the ruling, remanded the case to the Board to take additional proof on whether the neighboring landowner was willing to pay for the costs of diverting the discharge, the costs of implementing the diversion option, and the landfill owner’s ability to pay for the diversion plan. We granted the Board’s application for permission to appeal. We hold that the Court of Appeals failed to properly apply the judicial review provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(h) (2011) and substituted its judgment for that of the Board. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Demetrius D. Walton v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc.
The workers' compensation claimant was an independent contractor for the defendant, a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. The claimant and the defendant agreed that the defendant would provide workers' compensation coverage to the claimant based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-106(1)(B) (2012). The claimant was injured while driving a tractor trailer for the defendant. The claimant's claim for benefits was denied, and he sued for workers' compensation benefits. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claimant's employment agreement was void because of alleged material misrepresentations made by the claimant regarding his physical condition during his pre-employment medical examination. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, based on its finding that the claim was barred by claimant's pre-employment material misrepresentations and Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-103 (2012). This 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 under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Anthony Rivera
The Defendant, Joseph Anthony Rivera, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder committed during the attempt to perpetrate a kidnapping, first degree felony murder committed during the attempt to perpetrate a burglary, second degree murder, a Class A felony, especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2014) (felony murder), 39-13-210(a) (2014) (second degree murder); 39-14-404 (2014) (especially aggravated burglary), 39-13-102 (2010) (aggravated assault). The trial court merged the felony murder committed during the attempted perpetration of a kidnapping and second degree murder convictions with the felony murder committed during the attempt to perpetrate a burglary conviction and sentenced the Defendant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for felony murder, ten years for especially aggravated burglary, and five years for aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his felony murder convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to sever, (3) the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, (4) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photograph evidence, (5) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to question two witnesses relative to an unrelated homicide, and (6) the prosecutor made improper statements during his closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Allen Cathey
Defendant, Brian Allen Cathey, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver over one-half ounce of marijuana and to possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia in exchange for a one-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. The trial court denied alternative sentencing. On appeal Defendant challenges the denial of an alternative sentence. We determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Aniston M. et al.
This appeal arises from a termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children‘s Services ("DCS") filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Sevier County ("the Juvenile Court") seeking to terminate the parental rights of James W. ("Father") to his children Aniston and Chloe ("the Children"). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father‘s parental rights to the Children on the ground of wanton disregard and, also, finding that termination of Father‘s parental rights was in the Children‘s best interest. Father appeals, arguing that the Juvenile Court‘s failure to grant his request for appointed counsel during the earlier dependency and neglect proceeding warrants reversal of the Juvenile Court‘s order terminating his parental rights to the Children. We hold that any alleged deficiencies in the dependency and neglect proceedings were remedied by the protections afforded by the termination proceeding, and that, in any event, Father was not disadvantaged by any alleged deficiencies. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |