84 Lumber Company vs. R. Bryan Smith, et al - Concurring
I agree with so much of the majority opinion as affirms the trial court’s judgment against Allstate Building System, LLC. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s decision (1) to reverse the judgment in favor of 84 Lumber Company against R. Bryan Smith and (2) to grant summary judgment to Mr. Smith. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
84 Lumber Company vs. R. Bryan Smith, et al
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Danny E. Rogers vs. Steven Payne, et al
This appeal involves an inmate's petition for writ of certiorari, which he filed after he was convicted by the prison disciplinary board of participating In security threat group activity. after reviewing the record, the trial court dismissed his petition. We affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
John P. Konvalinka vs Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
This is the second time this case, filed by John P. Konvalinka ("the Petitioner") to force disclosure of public documents, has been before us. In the trial court's order that generated the first appeal, the court held that the records the petitioner requested from Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority ("the Hospital" or "Erlanger") were exempt from disclosure under state law, and pretermitted the question of whether they were exempt from disclosure under federal law. On appeal, we held that the records were not protected from disclosure by state law and remanded for a determination of whether they were protected from disclosure by federal law. The Hospital attempted on remand to assert additional state law defenses to disclosure. The trial court held that the new state law defenses were outside the scope of the remand. It also held that federal law did not protect the documents at issue from disclosure. Accordingly, it ordered the Hospital to produce the documents. The Hospital appeals challenging both aspects of the trial court's judgment. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Dexter F. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dexter F. Johnson, appeals from the post-conviction court's order denying his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the post-conviction court's order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Anthony Bailey v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner John Anthony Bailey filed the present petition for post-conviction relief in 2009 seeking relief from convictions entered in 1995 and 1996. Petitioner acknowledged that his petition was not filed within the one year statute of limitations; however, he asserted that due process required tolling of the statute of limitations. The post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Hines
The Defendant, Mark Hines, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of criminal attempt to commit second degree murder. See T.C.A. __ 39-13-210(a)(1), 39-12- 101(a)(2), -(3) (2006). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years' confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce prejudicial demonstrative evidence to the jury, (3) the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay into evidence, (4) the trial court erred by giving incorrect and incomplete jury instructions, and (5) he was improperly sentenced. We affirm the conviction, but we reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dawn Lyn Tousignant Gordon vs. Robert Frank Gordon
In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Dawn Lyn Tousignant Gordon ("Wife") 59% of the marital estate, or approximately $231,100. It also ordered Robert Frank Gordon ("Husband") to pay Wife "permanent spousal support" of $2,200 per month. Husband appeals and challenges both the division of marital property and the court's award of alimony in futuro. We modify the trial court's division of marital property and its award of alimony. As modified, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Alfred Eugene Bradley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alfred Eugene Bradley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that trial counsel was not ineffective, and the Petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Ray Fox, Jr. v. Kristi Danielle Fox
The trial court found Husband guilty of two counts of criminal contempt for violation of a court order. Husband appeals the findings of contempt on the ground that he did not receive proper notice. The trial court dismissed a third count of criminal contempt without prejudice and allowed Wife to re-file her claim so as to provide Husband with proper notice. We affirm the court's two findings of contempt and reverse its dismissal of the third count of contempt, finding that Husband was given sufficient notice. We remand the matter to the court for a determination of whether Husband violated the order. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Tonya Gager v. River Park Hospital
Plaintiff, a nurse practitioner formerly employed by a staffing service and supplied to a hospital emergency department, sued the hospital for retaliatory discharge under Tennessee common law and the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-1-304. The hospital moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Roy Odom v. Lisa Odom
Father appeals the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to void an order appointing a parenting coordinator. We find that the appeal is now moot. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Doran Tears
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jonathan Doran Tears, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony (Count 1); two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony (Counts 2-3); unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class E felony (Count 4); possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class D felony (Count 5); and employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony (Count 6). The trial court merged Counts 2 and 3 with Count 1, and the trial court merged Counts 4 and 5 with Count 6. The trial court then sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender and ordered the Defendant to serve 15 years for the attempted second degree murder conviction and a consecutive 10 years for the employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony conviction, for a total effective sentence of 25 years. The trial court also ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed in a separate case. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession and employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony and that (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Davis, et al. v. Patrick J. McGuigan, et al. - Dissenting
This appeal arises from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in an action against a real estate appraiser for fraudulent misrepresentation and for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A husband and wife alleged that the appraiser, who was hired by the bank financing the husband and wife's home construction, recklessly overestimated the value of their proposed construction and that they reasonably relied on the appraisal value to their detriment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that an appraisal is an opinion that cannot form the basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We hold that an opinion can form the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We further hold that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment as to the husband and wife's claims against the appraiser. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Joseph Davis, et al. v. Patrick J. McGuigan, et al.
This appeal arises from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in an action against a real estate appraiser for fraudulent misrepresentation and for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A husband and wife alleged that the appraiser, who was hired by the bank financing the husband and wife's home construction, recklessly overestimated the value of their proposed construction and that they reasonably relied on the appraisal value to their detriment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that an appraisal is an opinion that cannot form the basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We hold that an opinion can form the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We further hold that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment as to the husband and wife's claims against the appraiser. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
David Carl Duncan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, David Carl Duncan, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard J. Atkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard J. Atkins, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that there was no newly discovered evidence and that his petition was untimely pursuant to the statute of limitations and in dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Korinna Stephens v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Korinna Stephens, appeals as of right from the order of the Knox County Criminal Court denying her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her convictions of aggravated robbery, theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, and possession of drug paraphernalia for which she received an effective sentence of twelve years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, she contends that her guilty pleas were rendered involuntarily by the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Amy Goolsby James v. Chadwick Ryan James
This is a divorce action. Wife asserts the trial court erred by not granting her a new trial, by declaring the parties divorced rather than awarding the divorce to her, and in its division of property, award of alimony, and by not naming her the primary residential parent and setting child support accordingly. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Victor L. Dobbins v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary conviction. The respondents did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and a certified copy of the record of the disciplinary proceedings was filed with the trial court. The respondents then filed a motion for judgment on the record. After review of the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the trial court granted the respondents' motion for judgment on the record. The petitioner inmate appeals. We affirm, concluding that material evidence supported the conviction, and that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Michael Overton v. Kimberly Robb
The defendant was found in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and sentenced to serve 180 days in jail unless she purged her contempt with the payment of $2,200. Finding the evidence inadequate to support a finding that the defendant had the ability to pay child support when it was due or that she had the ability to pay $2,200 at the time of the hearing in order to purge the sentence, we reverse. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Willie J. Cunningham v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Willie J. Cunningham, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Hardeman County. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals because the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Upon our review of the petition and the applicable authorities, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Bernard Farr
The defendant, Anthony Bernard Farr, stands convicted of (1) possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony; (2) resisting a stop and frisk, a Class B misdemeanor; and (3) criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine and that his sentence was excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Bigsbee
The appellant, Antonio Bigsbee, was convicted by a Robertson County Circuit Court Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping and reckless endangerment. He received a total effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present the testimony of a rebuttal witness, that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Robert Wayne Bell regarding a gun purchased by the appellant, and that the State's closing argument was improper. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven D. Skinner v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven D. Skinner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that counsel's representation was ineffective because counsel failed to investigate and prepare for his case. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |