APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal stems from a partition lawsuit. The real property at issue was sold at auction. The issues on appeal are whether Appellants have an ownership interest in the property and the proceeds from partition sale, and whether the trial court properly allocated the proceeds between the rightful owners. We reverse the trial court regarding ownership and hold that Appellants own one-half of the property. We affirm the trial court’s allocation of the funds from the partition sale. We vacate the trial court’s judgment as to whether Appellants’ attorneys’ fees should be paid from the partition proceeds and remand this issue for reconsideration in light of our Court’s determination of ownership.

Because the order from which the appellant has filed an appeal does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Petitioner, Brian Howard, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He argues trial counsel was ineffective in two ways: first, by failing to sever Petitioner’s trial from that of his co-defendant, or alternatively, failing to introduce the co-defendant’s pretrial statement to police during their joint trial; and second, by failing to waive lesser included offense instructions. He also raises a standalone due process claim, arguing that criminal defendants should have a constitutional right to affirmatively waive lesser included charges contrary to Tennessee law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Petitioner appeals from the order of the post-conviction court denying his petition seeking relief from his conviction for first-degree murder. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues (1) that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to or raise as an issue on appeal the admissibility Chamere Talley’s prior statement based on Tennessee Rule 803(26); (2) that the State and the trial court violated due process in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 803(26); (3) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate closing argument; and (4) that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors deprived the Petitioner of a fair trial.1 We affirm.

Lacy Frank Walls, III, Defendant, was convicted of evading arrest and three counts of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of forty years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court refused to consider all of the issues presented in his motion for new trial. After a review, we find the trial court erred by refusing to consider all the issues presented in the motion for new trial. On remand, the trial court should hold a new hearing on the motion for new trial, at which the trial court should consider all the issues in the motion. The trial court should also enter judgment forms for Counts Four and Five and enter corrected judgment forms in Counts One, Two, and Six, reflecting Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and the proper statute under which Defendant is required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence.

A gas company obtained an easement by eminent domain across a property owner’s land. A jury determined the amount of just compensation payable to the landowner. On appeal, the gas company argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear expert testimony from the landowner’s expert regarding the value of the property and that the jury verdict is not supported by material evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the relation back doctrine under Tennessee Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.03. The plaintiffs sued a corporate entity for premises liability. The
corporate defendant successfully moved for summary judgment on grounds that it did not
own the subject property. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend in which they
sought leave to amend their complaint to name a separate corporate entity as a defendant.
The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the initial mistake was a
misnomer and that the plaintiffs were not seeking to add a new party even though the
defendant to be added was a distinct corporate entity. The defendants sought permission
to file an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted. The record contains no
evidence that the separate corporate entity named by the plaintiffs in their amended
pleading received timely notice of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. We therefore reverse the
judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint after finding that the plaintiffs failed to timely close on their transactions with the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal. Following thorough review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings.

A judgment creditor domesticated a Georgia judgment in Tennessee under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. When the creditor sought to enforce the domesticated judgment, the debtor raised a statute-of-limitations defense. The trial court ruled that the enforcement action was time-barred because the limitations period began to run when the foreign judgment was rendered in Georgia. Upon review, we conclude that domestication of the foreign judgment under the Uniform Act resulted in a new Tennessee judgment for purposes of the statute of limitations. So we reverse the trial court’s decision

The plaintiffs in a health care liability action moved to continue the trial date due to health issues from which one of the plaintiffs was purportedly suffering. The trial court denied the motion to continue, and the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the trial court that the plaintiffs would not be attending the trial, despite the denial of their motion for continuance. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the case and the plaintiffs’ noncompliance with a pretrial order. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the dismissal order and ultimately appealed to this Court. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Defendant, Charles Hubert Russell, was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the indicted charge violated the Second Amendment. After the trial court denied the motion, Defendant pled guilty to the indicted charge but reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure pertaining to whether his conviction violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. After reviewing the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from an action for breach of a contract wherein the defendants had agreed to assist the plaintiff in purchasing improved real property. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff had committed the first material breach of the parties’ contract, had acted in bad faith, and had misrepresented information to the defendants regarding her performance of the contract. However, the court determined that the defendants had continued to accept payment on the contract after the plaintiff’s breach. The trial court awarded to the plaintiff a judgment in the amount of $170,470.04, representing reimbursement of all payments she had made to the defendants, plus interest, but minus expenses incurred by the defendants over the course of the agreement. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s request for specific performance. The plaintiff has appealed. Due to significant deficiencies in the plaintiff’s appellate briefs, we conclude that she has waived consideration of all issues on appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We deny the defendants’ request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

In this matter involving the sale of a parcel of improved real property, the buyer claimed
that the sellers should be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the
condition of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sellers,
determining that the presence of an “as-is” clause in the parties’ sales contract precluded
the buyer’s recovery. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment
with respect to the buyer’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment as well as her claim based on the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures
Act. We remand these issues to the trial court for further consideration. We affirm the
trial court’s grant of summary judgment concerning the buyer’s remaining claims and deny
the buyer’s request for reassignment to a different trial court judge upon remand. We also
deny the sellers’ request for an award of attorney’s fees.

This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review under Tennessee Code Annotated § 4- 5-322 of a decision of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration Review Commission (the “Review Commission”). Asserting that the petition was untimely because it had been filed more than 60 days after entry of the agency’s final order, the Review Commission filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(1). The petitioner opposed the motion by asking for an enlargement of time pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.02. The trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time and granted the Review Commission’s motion to dismiss. The petitioner appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, Jennifer Leigh Sexton, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court
of vehicular homicide by recklessness, a Class C felony; initiating a false report, a Class D
felony; driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor; and following too closely,
a Class C misdemeanor, and received an effective sentence of ten years in confinement.
On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
testimony from the State’s expert because the expert’s method of data collection was
unreliable, (2) the trial court erred by failing to provide the Defendant’s requested special
jury instructions, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of initiating
a false report. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This matter arises from two failed real estate transactions. A buyer contracted to purchase two townhomes from a real estate developer. However, after the sales failed to close, the developer purported to cancel the transactions. The buyer then sued the developer, seeking decrees for specific performance and damages for breach of contract. The buyer also asserted a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After a bench trial, the trial court entered an order awarding the buyer specific performance but denying his claim for damages. The trial court also found a TCPA violation and awarded the buyer his attorney’s fees and costs. On the breach of contract claim, we have determined that the developer breached the contracts and that the buyer failed to sufficiently prove his damages, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. We also conclude that the trial court erred in finding a TCPA violation and reverse this finding, as well as the award of fees and costs pursuant to the TCPA. Finally, we have determined that the developer was not the prevailing party in the trial court or on appeal and deny its request for an award of attorney’s fees.

The trial court terminated a father’s parental rights to his five minor children after finding clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated when the termination petition was filed, abandoned the children by wanton disregard; the children were victims of severe abuse; the father was confined under a criminal sentence of six years; and termination of the father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The father appeals. Upon diligent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jacquiz McBee, has filed a petition for recusal appeal seeking review of the Knox County Criminal Court’s January 28, 2026 order denying his motion to recuse. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.02. Following our review of the Defendant’s petition, we have determined that a response from the State is not necessary and summarily deny relief. 

A developer failed to use proper erosion control measures, resulting in recurring sediment runoff into a pond owned by neighboring landowners and increasing accumulation of sediment therein. The trial court concluded that developer’s actions constituted a temporary, not permanent, nuisance and awarded injunctive relief and damages. Damages for emotional distress were included among the damages the trial court awarded. The developer appeals, challenging the trial court’s finding as to proximate causation and asserting that its actions, if a nuisance, were a permanent and not temporary nuisance, and accordingly the landowners’ suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The developer also asserts that the trial court erred as to the remedies awarded, challenging both the injunctive relief and emotional distress damages. We affirm the trial court’s findings as to proximate causation and its conclusion that the nuisance is temporary. We also affirm the trial court’s imposition of an injunction. However, we reverse the award of damages for emotional distress based upon deficient pleading.

This matter is before the Court upon application of the Defendant, Jonathan Abernathy, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The State has filed a response in opposition. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Upon full consideration, the application is denied for the reasons stated below.

The defendant was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a tractor-trailer truck in
another state. The insurance company that insured both the truck and the trailer filed a
lawsuit in the Shelby County circuit court based on negligence. The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure
12.02(3). The trial court held that the terms of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-4-
101(a) did not provide for venue in Shelby County because the action did not arise there
and the defendant did not reside there. The insurance company appeals. We affirm.

Defendant, Gerald Elijah Crossley, challenges his Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Defendant’s alleged gang affiliation and expert testimony about gang-related activities and that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Amanda Jean Phillips, was convicted by a Scott County jury of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony; two counts of especially aggravated
kidnapping, a Class A felony; two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years
of age or less, a Class A felony; and carjacking, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced
the Defendant to four years for the aggravated assault conviction, twenty years for each of
the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, twenty years for each of the aggravated
child neglect convictions, and ten years for the carjacking conviction. Finding the
Defendant to be a dangerous offender, the trial court ordered partial consecutive sentences
for an effective total sentence of thirty years at 100% service in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in
support of her aggravated child neglect convictions and argues that the trial court erred by
not considering a mandatory mitigating factor in imposing her especially aggravated
kidnapping sentences and by classifying her as a dangerous offender under the consecutive
sentencing statute. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s
convictions for aggravated child neglect and that the trial court did not err in its application
of enhancement and mitigating factors but failed to make adequate findings in support of
consecutive sentencing under the dangerous offender criterion of the consecutive
sentencing statute. However, upon de novo review, we conclude that the record supports
the imposition of consecutive sentences based on the Defendant’s having committed the
offenses while she was on probation. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions
and the sentences imposed by the trial court.

A majority of the members of the State Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party approved adding unelected “ex-officio members” as full members of the Executive Committee with voting rights. A group of dissenting Executive Committee members brought suit, claiming that the addition of voting members of the Executive Committee in this manner violated statutory provisions governing the composition of state party executive committees, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-13-101 et seq. In response, the Executive Committee argued the statutory provisions permit adding ex-officio members as full voting members and invoked constitutional avoidance principles in support of the Executive Committee’s interpretation of the statutory scheme. The Executive Committee filed a counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of the statutory scheme based on freedom of association principles. Both parties sought judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the Executive Committee’s motion for judgment on pleadings, construing the statutory scheme as permitting the Executive Committee’s actions. Accordingly, the trial court pretermitted the constitutional issue, dismissing the Executive Committee’s counterclaim as moot. The dissenting members appealed. We conclude the trial court erred in its interpretation of the statutory scheme. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This matter is before the Court upon the application of the Defendant, Christopher Lee Faulkner, for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. The Defendant seeks to challenge the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The State has filed a response in opposition to the motion. Based on the following, we deny the Petitioner’s motion for an interlocutory appeal.