Darla Bullock, as next of kin and sole surviving heir of Linda H. Lobertini v. University Health Systems, Inc.
This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case. The original plaintiff, the decedent, filed the initial malpractice action against the defendant, but the case was dismissed after the decedent passed away during the pendency of the suit. Her sole surviving heir re-filed the action without complying with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-26-121 and 122, which require a plaintiff who files a medical malpractice suit (1) to give a health care provider who is to be named in the suit notice of the claim sixty days before filing the suit, and (2) to file with the medical malpractice complaint a certificate of good faith confirming that the plaintiff has consulted with an expert who has provided a signed written statement that there is a good-faith basis to maintain the action. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Glen A. Forrest
The defendant, Glen A. Forrest, was convicted of attempted cocaine delivery in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417 (2010). The trial court ordered six months of his sentence to be served in prison and the remaining five years and six months to be served on probation. The trial court subsequently found the defendant to be in violation of the terms of his probation and revoked the probation, ordering the defendant to serve the original sentence. The defendant appeals the trial court’s determination that he violated the terms of his probation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court has committed no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Freeman
A Madison County Jury convicted Defendant, Jonathan Freeman, of possession of more than one-half ounce (14.175 grams) of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver. Defendant waived his right to a sentencing hearing, the two convictions were merged, and he received an agreed sentence of two years, to serve ten days, and the balance on probation, including sixty hours of community service work. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Norman D. Carrick
Defendant was placed on supervised probation in 2007 with the special condition that he not be involved in dog fighting or have more than two dogs in his home. The defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to another three years probation on the grounds that nine dogs were found in his home. Defendant appeals, claiming that the special condition placed on his probation was not reasonably related to his conviction and that the judge did not articulate sufficient grounds to place an additional special provision on his newly-imposed probation that he not be permitted to possess any dogs. We conclude that the special conditions affecting the defendant’s dog ownership are reasonably related to the purposes of his sentences and are not unduly restrictive or otherwise impermissible. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed accordingly. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William H . Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation et al.
Petitioner challenges the decision of the Tennessee Department of Transportation denying his application for a billboard permit because his proposed location was within 1000 feet of another permit location. He contends the Department erroneously deviated from its regulation requiring permit applications for locations within 1000 feet of each other to be considered on a “first come first served” basis, insisting he submitted a “complete” application before the applicant who was granted a permit for the nearby location. The Chancery Court summarily dismissed the petition, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Department’s decision to grant a permit to the other applicant. The court also found that the Department complied with its rules in issuing the permit to the other applicant and denying the petitioner’s application because petitioner’s location was less than 1000 feet away from the other applicant’s location. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rickey Dickerson v. Sstate of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rickey Dickerson, was convicted of two counts of second degree murder. He filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a continuance and in failing to consult more thoroughly with the petitioner prior to trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding neither deficiency nor prejudice. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James E. Gayles v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James E. Gayles, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that his convictions are void because he was sentenced in direct violation of Tennessee statutory law. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeff Henson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jeff Henson, pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, 1 aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, attempted aggravated sexual battery, driving under the influence third offense, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, as a Range I offender, to an effective sentence of twelve years of confinement followed by community supervision for life. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after holding a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because his trial counsel was ineffective and because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Limited Partnership, et al. v. Carl Mabry
Appellant takes exception to the trial court’s order, enforcing a settlement agreement. ollowing a judicial settlement conference, the parties signed a written agreement, which contemplated the execution of more formal settlement documents. When the formal documents were presented to Appellant, he refused to sign. Upon Appellees’ motion, the trial court enforced the settlement and Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Brett Stokes
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, occupant of the property which had been foreclosed. Plaintiff held a deed of ownership. Plaintiff sued for possession and for damages for unlawful detainer of the property. The Trial Court granted plaintiff summary judgment for possession and damages for unlawful detainer pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-18-120. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
James Lueking, et al., v. Cambridge Resources, Inc., et al.
In this case the Trial Court entered a "Final Judgment". The Judgment did not resolve defendant's Counter-Claim. On appeal, we hold we are without jurisdiction to consider the Appeal and dismiss the Appeal. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce et al.
This matter involves a disagreement between an insurer and an insured over the proper classification of employees for the purpose of workers’ compensation insurance. The decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance was in favor of the insurer. The insured appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the Department. We find that the decision of the Department of Commerce and Insurance is supported by substantial and material evidence and affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tamala Teague, as successor personal representative of the Estate of Lola Lee Duggan v. Garnette Kidd, et al.
This appeal involves a claim filed by the Administrator of Decedent’s estate to recover monetary assets that were misappropriated from Decedent prior to her death. Administrator alleged that the Kidds depleted Decedent’s monetary assets, thereby breaching a confidential relationship they held with her. The trial court agreed and issued a judgment against the Kidds with prejudgment interest. We affirm the judgment against Wife as modified but reverse the judgment against Husband. The case is remanded. |
Polk | Court of Appeals | |
Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, Gwendolyn R. Williams v. Onzie O. Horne, III
This is an interpleader action resulting from competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Insured’s mother, finding that, because she was the only named beneficiary of the policy, she was entitled to the proceeds. Insured’s husband appeals, arguing that, because Insured’s mother was only named as a contingent beneficiary, the default provisions of the policy remained in effect, resulting in him being the primary beneficiary of the policy. Husband also appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his bad faith claim against the insurer. We affirm the dismissal of the bad faith claim, but conclude that the contract at issue is ambiguous and the issue in this case is not properly decided on summary judgment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ron W. Robinson v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
This workers’ compensation 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 Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. The employee injured his neck in the course of his employment in 2005. He returned to work for his pre-injury employer and settled his claim subject to the one and one-half times impairment cap. In 2009, the employer entered into a new collective bargaining agreement in which the hourly wages of all production workers were reduced. Thereafter, the employee sought reconsideration on his earlier settlement pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(B) (2008). The trial court held that the across-the-board wage reduction did not trigger the right to reconsideration and denied the employee’s claim. We affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Edward Hanson v. J.C. Hobbs Company, Inc.
This case arises out of the sale of a tractor. The plaintiff purchaser bought a tractor online from the defendant company, which specializes in the sale of tractors. The company advertised the tractor as having many fewer hours of use than it actually had. After taking possession of the tractor and learning the tractor’s true condition, the purchaser filed this lawsuit against the company, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the purchaser, and awarded compensatory damages and attorney fees. The company now appeals, arguing inter alia that the evidence does not support an award of compensatory damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Jackson
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jimmy Jackson, of one count of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine within a drug-free school zone and one count of delivering .5 grams or more of cocaine within a drug-free school zone, Class B felonies. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced him as a Range II offender to fourteen years. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by ruling he could not question a State’s witness about conduct involving dishonesty pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608(b) and that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation and that the error was not harmless. Therefore,the appellant’s convictions are reversed,and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Dylan P.
The trial court determined that the minor children in this case were dependent and neglected upon finding that one of the children was the victim of severe child abuse. Mother appeals. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Keeton
The Supreme Court entered a order 11/21/12 in the case of State vs. Jeremy Keeton vacating the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanding the case to the trial court for supplementation of the record in the case of State vs. Jeremy Keeton M2009-1928-CCA-R3-CD filed 6/26/12. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Conservatorship of Maurice M. Acree, Jr., et al. v. Nancy Acree, et al.
In this action a Petition was filed and a conservator was appointed for Dr. Maurice M. Acree, |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Christopher A. D.
The mother brought a petition to modify support and for contempt, alleging that the father |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Lowe-Kelley
A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Charles E. Lowe-Kelley, of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. At sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole for each premeditated murder conviction, merged the felony murder convictions into the premeditated murder convictions, and imposed concurrent sentences of 15 years’ incarceration for each attempted first degree murder conviction to be served concurrently with the two life sentences. In addition to contesting the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a continuance, (2) allowing a juror to remain on the jury who expressed an opinion about the case, (3) admitting evidence without establishing a proper chain of custody, (4) admitting a tape-recorded conversation between the defendant and a separately-tried codefendant, and (5) imposing consecutive sentences. On initial review, we concluded that all issues except the sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing were waived because the defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial. See State v. Charles E. Lowe-Kelley, No. M2010-00500-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 14, 2011). The petitioner applied for permission to appeal this court’s decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. On August 28, 2012, the supreme court ruled that the defendant’s motion for new trial was timely and that the trial court properly allowed amendments to the motion for new trial and remanded the case to this court for consideration of the defendant’s appellate issues. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Margaret L. Swift
This appeal involves the interpretation of a will. The named residuary beneficiary predeceased the testatrix. The executrix of the decedent’s estate argued that a survivorship requirement in the will applies to the named residuary beneficiary, so her interest lapsed. The issue of the residuary beneficiary argued that the survivorship requirement did not apply to the residuary beneficiary, so Tennessee’s anti-lapse statute operates to pass the beneficiary’s interest to her issue. The trial court held for the executrix, construing the will so as to apply the survivorship requirement to the residuary beneficiary. We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the will, and so affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Margaret L. Swift - Dissenting
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Davison
The Appellant filed a motion to correct a judgment pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 in the Shelby County Criminal Court. The trial court subsequently entered an order denying the Appellant’s motion. In this appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Because there is no appeal as of right from the denial of a Rule 36 motion to correct a judgment, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |