Court of Appeals Opinions

Format: 07/22/2014
Format: 07/22/2014
Sneed (Ford) vs. Sneed
01A01-9612-CH-00542
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain
Maury County Court of Appeals 06/25/92
DeShayne Neal v. Jerry Neal
M2003-02703-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Gerald L. Ewell, Sr.
This is an appeal from the chancery court order refusing to modify the parties' divorce decree and permanent parenting plan. Mother filed a Petition to Modify, and Father filed an Answer and Counter Petition also requesting modification. The Chancellor dismissed both the Petition and Counter Petition finding that there had not been sufficient change in circumstances since the initial entry of the divorce decree to justify modification. Upon review of the Permanent Parenting Plan and Final Decree of the Chancery Court, we find that this Permanent Parenting Plan and the judge's approval of such plan do not meet the requirements of Tennessee law. As such, the Permanent Parenting Plan is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court.
Fentress County Court of Appeals 01/31/92
Eddie Dobbins vs. George Dobbins
02A01-9710-PB-00246
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Donn Southern
Shelby County Court of Appeals 01/28/92
Traci Sorrells vs. Donald Lee Sorrells
E1999-01658-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: C. Van Deacon
Bradley County Court of Appeals 11/15/91
01A01-9510-CV-00454
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Davidson County Court of Appeals 06/28/91
Tamco Supply, et al vs. Tom Pollard, et al
W1999-01725-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Lee Moore
Dyer County Court of Appeals 03/29/91
Kline vs. Kline
03A01-9706-CV-00240
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Court of Appeals 03/12/91
02A01-9411-CV-00265
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler
Shelby County Court of Appeals 09/15/90
Diana Morris v. State
M1999-02714-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge:
This appeal involves a dispute between the State of Tennessee and a former employee of the Department of Correction arising out of a work-related injury. After the Department discharged her for failing to return to work, the employee filed a retaliatory discharge claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that she had actually been fired because she had filed a workers' compensation claim. The Tennessee Court of Appeals determined that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over retaliatory discharge claims and vacated the Commission's $300,000 award to the employee. While the employee's appeal was pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee General Assembly retroactively broadened the Commission's jurisdiction to include retaliatory discharge claims. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this court's decision and remanded the case to this court for further consideration. We have determined that the Tennessee General Assembly may enact retroactive laws waiving the State's sovereign immunity with regard to past events, and we accede to the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in this case that the General Assembly validated the results of this proceeding. We also have concluded that the Commission had authority to award front pay damages. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's award.
Court of Appeals 08/24/90
Cecil Ayers vs. Minda Ayers
W1999-01261-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge:
Shelby County Court of Appeals 07/31/90
Lorri Bailey (Capps) vs. David Capps
M1999-02300-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This child custody case has already been the subject of one appeal before this Court. The father was awarded sole custody of the parties' only child, with the mother receiving liberal visitation rights. The mother petitioned for a change of custody. The trial court found that there was no material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an award of sole custody to the mother. However, the original custody order was modified to provide that the parties had joint custody, with the father being the "primary residential custodian." The trial court also ordered that the mother was no longer required to pay child support and that the mother owed no arrearage in child support. The father appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part, affirming the order of joint custody and the order that the mother is not required to pay child support, but we reverse on the issue of the mother's child support arrearage.
Wilson County Court of Appeals 04/27/90
In Re: Estate of Warren Glenn Brown, Candice Mathis, v. Joe Brown
01A01-9809-PB-00471
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew Jackson

In this case, the decedent’s grand niece, Candice Mathis, the petitioner, appeals the trial court’s finding that she failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence the lost or destroyed will of her grand uncle, Warren Brown. The trial court ordered that the administration of the estate proceed as an intestate estate. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Dickson County Court of Appeals 10/07/88
Pruett Enterprises, Inc., v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance, Co.
03A01-9609-CH-00309
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples

This non-jury case involves the interpretation of a commercial insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford) to Pruett Enterprises, Inc. (Pruett). Pruett, the owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in Hamilton County, sued Hartford under the policy for “spoilage losses to various perishable items [caused] when electrical power to [two of Pruett’s] grocery stores was interrupted as a result of a heavy snow blizzard [on or about March 13, 1993].” Each of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Based upon the parties’ stipulation of facts, the trial court granted Hartford partial summary judgment, finding that the loss at 6925 Middle Valley Road, Hixson (“Middle Valley Store”) was not covered by the policy. As to the loss at Pruett’s store at 3936 Ringgold Road, East Ridge (“Ringgold Road Store”), the trial court found a genuine issue of fact and denied Hartford’s motion.

Hamilton County Court of Appeals 08/17/04