Editorial
Front Page - Friday, April 16, 2010
Case Digests - Tennessee court of appeals syllabus
Rennee N. Dhillon v. Gursheel S. Dhillon
Williamson County – Husband raises numerous issues regarding the trial court’s handling of this divorce. He asserts that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon improper venue, in approving the parties’ marital dissolution agreement and denying his subsequent motion to set aside the agreement, in denying his petition to modify pendente lite support, in failing to address Wife’s alleged efforts to alienate the parties’ child from Husband, and in awarding excessive attorney fees to Wife. We affirm the trial court’s decisions, and because Husband’s appeal is frivolous, we award Wife her attorney fees on appeal.
Mary Jane Bridgewater v. Robert S. Adamczyk, et al.
Smith County – This is an appeal from an action to quiet title to thirty acres of property in Smith County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim to quiet title. The defendants appeal contending, inter alia, that the evidence the plaintiff relied on in support of her motion for summary judgment was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56; therefore, the motion should have been denied. We agree. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Carl E. Watson v. Robert P. Fogolin, M.D.
Davidson County – The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initially brought suit in General Sessions Court against his former physician for defamation (libel and slander), breach of contract and violation of the privacy provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).
The General Sessions Court awarded a judgment of $25,000 to the plaintiff. The defendant timely appealed to the Circuit Court and filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff then amended his claims to include an alleged violation of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 and medical malpractice.
Following a hearing, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the defendant physician, reversing the Sessions Court judgment and holding that (1) the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Department of Education forms completed by the defendant physician on behalf of the plaintiff did not constitute a contract; (3) HIPAA and Federal Privacy Act of 1974 claims had been withdrawn by the plaintiff; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to produce expert testimony to prove a claim of medical malpractice. The plaintiff timely appealed. We affirm.
Marilou Gilbert v. Don Birdwell and wife, Christine Birdwell
Grundy County – This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court’s denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee’s survey. Finding no error, we affirm.
Thomas E. Crowe, Jr. s. Bradley Equipment Rentals & Sales Inc., et al
Bradley County – Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, outrageous conduct, violation of Article 1, Section 18 of the Tennessee Consti-tution, and various violations of 11 U.S.C. 362, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. After removal of the lawsuit to federal court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the federal claims and remanded the state law claims back to the state trial court. The trial court subsequently granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims. We affirm.
William Mitchell v. Madi-son County Sheriff’s Depart-ment and The Madison County Civil Service Commission for Madison County Sheriff’s Department
Madison County – This appeal involves the termination of a sheriff’s department employee. The employee was terminated and appealed the termination to the county civil service commission. The termination was upheld by the commission, based solely on expert testimony. The employee then sought judicial review. The motion for summary judgment filed by the employer sheriff’s department was granted, and the employee’s petition was dismissed. The employee now appeals. We find that the expert testimony on which the commission relied is incongruent with the undisputed facts in the record. Therefore, we conclude that the commission’s decision is not supported by substantial and material evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the employee.
In the matter of: Sydney T. C. H.
Davidson County – This is an appeal from the Juvenile Court’s decision finding Mother guilty of three counts of criminal contempt. Finding the orders of the Juvenile Court to be lawful, specific and unambiguous, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of willfulness, we affirm. Also, we find that the permanent injunction entered by the Juvenile Court to be a lawful order of that court.
|
|