Appellate Court Opinions

State of Tennessee v. Martinez Obrien Carter

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:16:38 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Martinez Obrien Carter

Case Number

M2024-01817-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.

Originating Judge

Judge Russell Parkes

Date Filed

Wed, 04/15/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Martinez Obrien Carter, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of selling heroin, a Class B felony; selling fentanyl, a Class C felony; and casual exchange of fentanyl, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years; twelve and one-half years; and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) potential jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous information regarding his custodial status, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its cross-examination of a defense witness, (3) the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of the State’s confidential informant; and (4) the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Based upon the oral arguments and our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:25:52 +0000

Monica D. Sorensen v. Jayson R. Sorensen

Case Number

M2024-01651-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford

Originating Judge

Judge Kathryn Wall Olita

Date Filed

Wed, 04/15/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The trial court denied Husband’s timely motion to alter or amend a divorce decree involving child custody, child support, and the distribution of military retirement benefits. Several days later, the trial court entered a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Husband’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the former order, but within thirty days of the latter order. Because we determine that the time for filing an appeal from the order denying Husband’s motion was not affected by the entry of the Military Retired Pay Division Order, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

Vonda Star Smith v. State of Tennessee

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:11:50 +0000

Vonda Star Smith v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

E2025-00640-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Jill Bartee Ayers

Originating Judge

Judge John F. Dugger, Jr.

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Petitioner, Vonda Star Smith, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Petitioner also argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) obtain a DNA expert, (2) object to a comment made by the trial court, (3) object to the State’s introduction of an undisclosed impeachment statement, and (4) call a corroborating witness. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Demetruice Bennett

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:01:19 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Demetruice Bennett

Case Number

E2025-00599-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

In 2023, a Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Demetruice Bennett, of assault,
several offenses involving the possession of a weapon and evading arrest. The trial court
sentenced the Defendant, a Range II offender, to a total effective sentence of twenty years,
to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred
when it admitted a video showing that he possessed a firearm on a day different from the
day upon which the indicted offenses occurred; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to the admissibility of the video; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to
support his convictions related to his possession of a firearm. After review, we affirm the
trial court’s judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:04:55 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jayshawn Edward Williams

Case Number

E2025-00542-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Timothy L. Easter

Originating Judge

Judge G. Scott Green

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Jayshawn Edward Williams, Defendant, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder
for the shooting death of Travis Brown in Knoxville. The trial court sentenced Defendant
to a thirty-six-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed,
arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the proof did
not establish his identity and because he acted in self-defense. Because we determine the
evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:07:33 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Tyrome Cameron Ferguson

Case Number

E2025-00044-CCA-WR-CO

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Originating Judge

Judge Sandra Donaghy

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Tyrome Cameron Ferguson, was charged by a Monroe County grand jury
with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a
deadly weapon relating to an alleged road-rage incident. On the first day of the Defendant’s
trial, the trial court found that the State had violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure
16 and declared a mistrial. In a subsequent hearing, the trial court ordered the State to pay
defense counsel $500 “as a contribution toward his attorney[’s] fees” as a sanction for its
discovery violation. The Defendant’s charges were ultimately dismissed by agreement.
The State thereafter filed both an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 and a petition for common law writ of certiorari
challenging the trial court’s assessment of $500. We denied the State’s application for an
extraordinary appeal but granted its petition for writ of certiorari. State v. Ferguson, No.
E2025-00044-CCA-WR-CO (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 1, 2025) (Order). Finding that the
trial court’s order violated the State of Tennessee’s sovereign immunity from suit, we grant
certiorari and reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

State of Tennessee v. James Hewitt and Kelli Hewitt

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:18:30 +0000

State of Tennessee v. James Hewitt and Kelli Hewitt

Case Number

M2026-00291-CCA-R8-CO

Authoring Judge

Judge Jill Bartee Ayers; Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer; Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendants, James and Kelli Hewitt, for review of the conditions of their pretrial release. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants’ motion is denied.

Patrick Michael Wallen v. LC Germantown Owner, LLC

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:21:22 +0000

Patrick Michael Wallen v. LC Germantown Owner, LLC

Case Number

M2025-00873-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Maroney

Originating Judge

Judge Clifton David Briley

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed.

James William Rose et al. v. Patrick M. Malone

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:53:23 +0000

James William Rose et al. v. Patrick M. Malone

Case Number

M2023-01239-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II

Originating Judge

Judge Michael Binkley

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

In this grandparent visitation action, the grandparents filed a contempt petition, alleging that the child’s father had violated provisions of a previously entered visitation order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered an oral ruling and found the father in contempt. Before the trial court’s entry of a written order regarding contempt, however, the father filed a motion seeking the trial court judge’s recusal. The trial court entered orders adjudicating the contempt charges and the father’s bond before entering a written order adjudicating the recusal issue. The trial court then entered orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. The father has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court erred by entering further orders before entering an order adjudicating the recusal motion. We therefore vacate the trial court’s August 2023 bond orders and the August 2023 order regarding the second contempt petition, which were entered while the motion to recuse was pending. We reverse the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

CHARLES EDWARD COPELAND ET AL. v. SCG IV-KARCH’S CROSSING, LLC

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:45:16 +0000

CHARLES EDWARD COPELAND ET AL. v. SCG IV-KARCH’S CROSSING, LLC

Case Number

E2025-01018-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Kristi M. Davis

Originating Judge

Chancellor Deborah C. Stevens

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This is an appeal from a premises liability, slip-and-fall claim against the owner of a shopping center. The husband slipped and fell while trying to get into his vehicle at a shopping center owned by the defendant company. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Elliott J. Schuchardt v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:25:05 +0000

Elliott J. Schuchardt v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Case Number

E2024-00812-SC-R3-BP

Authoring Judge

Justice Mary L. Wagner

Originating Judge

Senior Judge D. Kelly Thomas

Date Filed

Tue, 04/14/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This is an attorney discipline case. Elliott J. Schuchardt was licensed to practice law in Tennessee in 2008. Beginning in 2019, several individuals reported Mr. Schuchardt to the Board of Professional Responsibility. These complaints detailed conduct that implicated the following rules of professional conduct (“RPC”): RPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a)–(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.7(a)(1) (Conflict of Interest), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.2 (Communication with a Person Represented by Counsel), 4.4(a)(1) (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.2(a)(2) (Judicial and Legal Officials), 8.4(c) (Misconduct-Dishonesty/Fraud/Deceit/Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct-Administration of Justice). A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Schuchardt violated these RPCs on forty-seven occasions and recommended disbarment. The Knox County Chancery Court affirmed. Mr. Schuchardt now asks us to reverse. Because ample evidence supports the decisions below, we affirm Mr. Schuchardt’s disbarment.

Jaylun Malik Currie v. State of Tennessee

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:55:29 +0000

Jaylun Malik Currie v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2025-00800-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge A. Blake Neill

Date Filed

Mon, 04/13/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Petitioner, Jaylun Malik Currie, appeals from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from the Petitioner’s convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault by strangulation, and aggravated criminal trespass and his effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged multiple instances of deficient performance. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Joseph Heintz v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:26:45 +0000

Joseph Heintz v. Tennessee State Board of Equalization

Case Number

M2025-00707-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Maroney

Originating Judge

Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal

Date Filed

Mon, 04/13/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Appellant filed a complaint for judicial review of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization’s decision to deny his request for property tax relief. Because Appellant sought review of an administrative order that had not become final under the applicable version of tax relief statutes, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(a)(1) (“A person who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review”) (emphasis added). Affirmed.

Crystal Lee Martin v. State of Tennessee

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:59:48 +0000

Crystal Lee Martin v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

M2025-01396-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Dee David Gay

Date Filed

Mon, 04/13/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Petitioner, Crystal Lee Martin, entered an Alford or “best interest” plea to DUI on March 17, 2025, and her sentence was immediately executed as time served. On July 17, 2025, the Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions, including a “post-conviction relief packet,” which was related to her DUI offense, and also to a separate offense to which she had previously pleaded guilty, been given probation, and her ensuing probation violation convictions. The post-conviction court entered an order stating that the petition was not signed under oath subject to penalty of perjury and gave the Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition, and it denied all her other motions. The Petitioner filed a motion stating that her petition was, in fact, properly verified and indicating her refusal to file an amended petition. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Matthew Lacy

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 20:16:50 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Matthew Lacy

Case Number

E2022-01442-SC-R11-CD

Authoring Judge

Justice Sarah K. Campbell

Originating Judge

Judge Jeffery Hill Wicks

Date Filed

Mon, 04/13/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Ronald Matthew Lacy was a luxury car middleman. In 2015, through a series of electronic communications sent from Kentucky, Lacy persuaded the owner of a car dealership in Tennessee to wire him funds for a Mercedes. But Lacy never delivered the Mercedes or returned the funds. In this appeal, we consider whether a Tennessee court had statutory territorial jurisdiction to convict Lacy of theft for that conduct. We conclude that it did. We further conclude that Lacy’s theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. We therefore uphold Lacy’s conviction and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals

Coy J. Cotham, Jr. v. State of Tennessee

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:20:38 +0000

Coy J. Cotham, Jr. v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

M2025-01171-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Mark J. Fishburn

Date Filed

Mon, 04/13/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Coy J. Cotham, Jr., of first-degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed a life sentence without parole and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Coy J. Cotham, Jr., M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3778613, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2014). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to DNA testing of a blue towel recovered from his vehicle. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

State of Tennessee v. Jacque Bouvier Bennett

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:06:41 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jacque Bouvier Bennett

Case Number

M2025-00342-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Steve R. Dozier

Date Filed

Fri, 04/10/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jacque Bouvier Bennett, of aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and assault by offensive touching. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it found the victim competent to testify; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim’s mother to be present during the victim’s testimony; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (4) the victim failed to identify the Defendant at trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors undermined the Defendant’s right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Blake Shemar Swann

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 19:26:14 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Blake Shemar Swann

Case Number

E2025-00975-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

John F. Dugger, Jr.

Date Filed

Fri, 04/10/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The defendant, Blake Shemar Swann, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his
probation and ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review
of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Gholam Reza Safaeih v. Reza Alizadegan

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 19:11:06 +0000

Gholam Reza Safaeih v. Reza Alizadegan

Case Number

W2024-01154-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Carma Dennis McGee

Originating Judge

Chancellor Tony Childress

Date Filed

Fri, 04/10/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The parties entered into an agreement in which the defendant provided funds and the
plaintiff used those funds to trade stocks. At one point, the defendant agreed to make a
$50,000 loan to the plaintiff so that the trading could continue. The agreement was
evidenced by a promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to repay the loan and to share
any losses incurred. The loan was secured by a deed of trust executed on the plaintiff’s
residence. Subsequently, the parties lost approximately $210,342. The plaintiff then filed
a declaratory judgment action in which he claimed that the deed of trust was void because
the loan funds had never been disbursed. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim
alleging that the plaintiff owed him the balance of the loan plus interest. He also sought
reimbursement for a portion of the losses that the parties had incurred. The chancery court
determined that the defendant had never disbursed the loan funds. Accordingly, it held that
the deed of trust and the portion of the promissory note which required repayment of the
loan balance were void due to a lack of consideration. However, the chancery court also
held that the portion of the promissory note in which the plaintiff agreed to share losses
was effective and left the defendant entitled to damages. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Parnell Quinn Short

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:48:19 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Parnell Quinn Short

Case Number

E2025-00153-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge Alex E. Pearson

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Parnell Quinn Short, of theft of property
valued between $1000 and $2500, a Class E felony and fixed a fine of $1750. The trial
court imposed the fine fixed by the jury and sentenced the Defendant, as a career offender,
to serve six years to run consecutively to the Defendant’s convictions in other cases. On
appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted three of his
prior convictions for impeachment purposes; and (2) imposed the fine set by the jury
without making the statutorily required findings. After review, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment but vacate the imposition of the fine. We remand the case for a sentencing
hearing with respect to the imposition of the fine.

Charles Lane v. State of Tennessee

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:44:56 +0000

Charles Lane v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

E2025-00857-CCA-R3-HC

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

Judge Jeffrey D. Rader

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The petitioner, Charles Lane, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by
the Sevier County Circuit Court, arguing the habeas court erred in dismissing the petition.
The petitioner asserts that his pretrial jail credits were not applied properly and that his
request for transcripts was erroneously denied. Following our review, we affirm the habeas
court’s dismissal of the petition as the petitioner has failed to show he is entitled to relief.

Crain Law Group, LLC v. Jenna Renee Amacher

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:34:47 +0000

Crain Law Group, LLC v. Jenna Renee Amacher

Case Number

M2024-01369-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Valerie L. Smith

Originating Judge

Judge Robert Thomas Carter

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment after Appellant’s counsel failed to respond or otherwise appear to oppose the motion. Discerning no error, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Timothy Sedman

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:52:03 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Timothy Sedman

Case Number

E2025-00576-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

Judge Justin C. Angel

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The defendant, Timothy Sedman, pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery, and
the trial court imposed a sentence of six years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request
for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the case for corrected
judgment forms in counts one through five and counts seven through twenty.

Cedric Taylor v. State of Tennessee

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:42:29 +0000

Cedric Taylor v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

M2025-00674-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Petitioner, Cedric Taylor, entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine and resisting arrest, for which he received an effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. The Petitioner sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to pursue a motion to suppress to challenge the constitutionality of the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle, and trial counsel’s failure to appeal his sentence. The Petitioner also claimed that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered due to trial counsel’s misleading advice that he would likely be sentenced to probation. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief, in part, and ordered a delayed appeal based on trial counsel’s failure to appeal the Petitioner’s sentence. This court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Petitioner’s request to serve his sentence on community corrections. See State v. Taylor, No. M2024-00192-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 3879116, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 20, 2024), appeal denied (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2024). The post-conviction court entered an order denying the issues that were held in abeyance, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court

Scott Keith Lannom v. Renee Alyce Lannom

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 18:48:57 +0000

Scott Keith Lannom v. Renee Alyce Lannom

Case Number

M2024-01952-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II

Originating Judge

Judge A. Ensley Hagan, Jr.

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

In this post-divorce action, the trial court conducted a two-day hearing regarding the mother’s petition to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the father moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The trial court granted the motion, determining that modification of the parenting plan was not warranted because the mother had not met her burden to prove that there had been a material change of circumstance affecting the minor child’s well-being. The trial court accordingly dismissed the mother’s petition with prejudice and awarded the father his reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We further determine that Father is entitled to his reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal.

In Re Braxton M.

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 21:01:20 +0000

In Re Braxton M.

Case Number

W2024-00762-COA-R3-PT

Authoring Judge

Judge Carma Dennis McGee

Originating Judge

Chancellor Michael Mansfield

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal involves a mother and stepfather’s petition to terminate the parental rights of a father to his surviving child after the death of the parties’ other child. The petition alleged two grounds for termination of parental rights – abandonment by failure to support and severe child abuse. The chancery court found that neither ground had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also reviewed the statutory best interest factors and concluded that it was not in the best interest of the child for the father’s parental rights to be terminated. The mother and stepfather appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In Re Braxton M. - Concur in Part/Dissent in Part

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 21:08:02 +0000

In Re Braxton M. - Concur in Part/Dissent in Part

Case Number

W2024-00762-COA-R3-PT

Authoring Judge

Judge Valerie L. Smith

Originating Judge

Chancellor Michael Mansfield

Date Filed

Thu, 04/09/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

It is often said that “hard cases make bad law.” This case is more than hard — it is tragic. In circumstances such as these, which evoke strong emotions, this Court must resist the temptation to bypass the limits of our appellate review and re-try cases and re-evaluate facts to achieve what some deem to be a more just result. Unfortunately, in my view, the majority’s opinion does exactly this – essentially abrogating the role of the trial judge as a factfinder. Specifically, the majority opinion reverses the trial court’s determination that no grounds existed for termination, reverses the trial court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is not in Braxton’s (“the Child’s”) best interest, reverses factual findings made by the trial court, and even disregards credibility findings made by the trial court. I agree that clear and convincing evidence exists to establish abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). The majority and I then choose different paths. Although I would reverse the trial court’s ruling as to abandonment, I would affirm in all other respects. In my view the majority ignores the presumption of correctness in the standard of review and does not give sufficient weight to the trial court’s credibility findings to travel the path they deem just. I do not agree that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact, nor that the aggregation of the individual facts amounts to clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest.

Hill Boren Properties, et al. v. Ricky Lee Boren, et al.

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 14:20:02 +0000

Hill Boren Properties, et al. v. Ricky Lee Boren, et al.

Case Number

W2025-00675-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge John W. McClarty

Originating Judge

Judge Robert E. Lee Davies

Date Filed

Wed, 04/08/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The appellants seek to challenge the settlement agreement by which the action was dismissed as well as the trial court’s summary judgment rulings entered earlier in the litigation. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lance Osteen

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 19:08:09 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lance Osteen

Case Number

W2024-00986-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Bruce I. Griffey

Date Filed

Wed, 04/08/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Christopher Lance Osteen, entered a guilty plea to two counts of
aggravated kidnapping. As a part of his plea, and pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 37, the Defendant sought to reserve one certified question of law related to the
trial court’s finding that his right to a speedy trial did not attach when he was arrested in
Florida due to his escape status as well as being served with a warrant from Kentucky; one
certified question related to the trial court’s finding that the Defendant’s verbal request to
the Florida court to invoke his constitutional rights was insufficient to properly invoke his
rights to speedy trial and due process; and one certified question related to the trial court’s
finding that the Defendant’s written letters and motion to dismiss sent to both the general
sessions clerk and the district attorney’s office failed to properly invoke his constitutional
rights to a speedy trial and due process as it pertained to his Henry County, Tennessee
general session case arrest warrants. Because the Defendant did not properly reserve
certified issues for review, we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of the
Defendant’s claims, and we dismiss his appeal.

KATHY DIANE BARKER COMPTON v. MICHAEL COMPTON

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:13:57 +0000

KATHY DIANE BARKER COMPTON v. MICHAEL COMPTON

Case Number

E2024-00549-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge John W. McClarty

Originating Judge

Chancellor William K. Rogers

Date Filed

Wed, 04/08/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The wife primarily challenges the trial court’s decision to deny her alimony. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Bennett Tate

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 21:37:08 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Bennett Tate

Case Number

E2025-00699-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Originating Judge

Judge Tammy M. Harrington

Date Filed

Wed, 04/08/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Antonio D. Bennett Tate, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court
revocation of his community corrections sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that
the trial court erred by improperly admitting video footage from a police officer’s bodyworn
camera during the revocation hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Boone Beverly

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 21:39:13 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Boone Beverly

Case Number

E2025-00302-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Sword

Originating Judge

Judge Hector Sanchez

Date Filed

Wed, 04/08/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Defendant, Boone Beverly, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. On
appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the
Defendant’s request to allocute or speak on his own behalf at his revocation hearing.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re Estate of Searcy V. Nicklos

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 20:32:39 +0000

In Re Estate of Searcy V. Nicklos

Case Number

W2025-00968-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Steven W. Maroney

Originating Judge

Judge Kathleen N. Gomes

Date Filed

Tue, 04/07/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal presents issues relating to the probate court’s admission of a copy of a will for muniment of title. However, we do not reach the merits of the appeal due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements outlined in Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a), and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

In Re Brady R.

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:09:19 +0000

In Re Brady R.

Case Number

M2025-00691-COA-R3-PT

Authoring Judge

Judge W. Neal McBrayer

Originating Judge

Judge Ronald Thurman

Date Filed

Tue, 04/07/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

This appeal arises from a petition to terminate the parental rights of a father for the purposes of adoption. The petitioners, the child’s stepfather and mother, alleged that the father abandoned the child both by failing to visit and by failing to support. When father failed to participate in discovery, the petitioners moved for a default as a sanction. After granting the requested default and holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and that termination of father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

Harpeth Financial Services, LLC v. Corey Montez Lea, Sr.

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:56:01 +0000

Harpeth Financial Services, LLC v. Corey Montez Lea, Sr.

Case Number

M2025-00389-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Carma Dennis McGee

Originating Judge

Judge Clifton David Briley

Date Filed

Tue, 04/07/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The plaintiff filed an action in the Davidson County general sessions court to recover the balance of an unpaid loan from the defendant. An agreed final order was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Approximately six months later, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment based on an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by the plaintiff. The general sessions court denied the motion. The defendant appealed the denial to the Davidson County circuit court. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court held that because the defendant had failed to file the motion to set aside within the ten-day statutory period outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-727(b), the general sessions court had correctly dismissed the motion as it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the judgment. Likewise, the circuit court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the merits as an appeal had not been timely filed. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Jerome Nchiyako Dooley

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 12:50:20 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Jerome Nchiyako Dooley

Case Number

E2025-00399-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Jill Bartee Ayers

Originating Judge

Judge G. Scott Green

Date Filed

Tue, 04/07/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Defendant, Jerome Nchiyako Dooley, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery and received an agreed sentence of five years as a Range III offender, to be served on probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probation based on a video Defendant posted to TikTok and that the court erred in failing to recuse itself sua sponte. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Glover

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 15:08:33 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Glover

Case Number

M2025-00820-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Matthew J. Wilson

Originating Judge

Judge Larry B. Stanley, Jr.

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Defendant, Anthony Glover, appeals the denial of his bid for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court’s ruling is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness and that, upon our de novo review, this court should grant him diversion. Because the trial court failed to consider all the appropriate factors and to make the required findings to support its denial of judicial diversion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Because we find that the record is insufficient for de novo review, the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL WAYNE STROUTH

terri.lomax@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:47:41 +0000

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL WAYNE STROUTH

Case Number

E2024-01790-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Originating Judge

Judge William K. Rogers

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Wayne Strouth, of first degree
premeditated murder and conspiracy to comrnit first degree premeditated rnurder. The trial
court irnposed a life sentence for the first degree murder conviction and a consecutive
twenty-five year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts
that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when
it failed to give jury instructions on enhanced identification and general inferences; and (3)
the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced hirn. After review, we affirm the
convictions and the Defendant's life sentence for first degree prerneditated murder;
however, we vacate the Defendant's sentence for conspiracy to commit first degree murder
and the trial court's imposition of partial consecutive sentencing. We remand this case to
the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

State of Tennessee v. Shamone Davis

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 18:30:17 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Shamone Davis

Case Number

M2025-00410-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Timothy L. Easter

Originating Judge

Judge James A. Turner

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Shamone Davis, Defendant, was convicted of four counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, one count of attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure for events that involved his stepdaughter. As a result of the convictions, Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. Defendant appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, the trial court improperly admitted testimony of several witnesses, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for attempted statutory rape by an authority figure, and his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In Re Evalina H.

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 19:39:56 +0000

In Re Evalina H.

Case Number

W2025-00405-COA-R3-PT

Authoring Judge

Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford

Originating Judge

Chancellor Michael Mansfield

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

Petitioners attempted to terminate the parental rights of the child’s biological father on the
grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support. The trial court found that neither
ground had been proven but proceeded to find that had grounds for termination been
proven, it would be in the child’s best interest for the biological father’s parental rights to
be terminated. Although we affirm the trial court’s finding that the biological father proved
that his failure to visit was not willful, we reverse the trial court’s finding as to the ground
of abandonment by failure to support. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that
termination is in the child’s best interest.

Fred Auston Wortman, III v. State of Tennessee

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:01:46 +0000

Fred Auston Wortman, III v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2025-00697-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge J. Ross Dyer

Originating Judge

Judge James Jones, Jr.

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The petitioner, Fred Auston Wortman, III, pled guilty to two counts of attempted
first-degree murder and solicitation of first-degree murder, stemming from his repeated
attempts to kill his wife. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an effective
Range II sentence of thirty years with a Range I release eligibility of thirty percent. The
Board of Probation and Parole denied the petitioner release, and after challenging the denial
via other avenues, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he
claimed entitlement to relief on grounds of breach of contact. In his petition, the petitioner
claimed that the State violated the terms of his plea agreement by opposing his release at
the parole hearing. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding it was timebarred.
However, this Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the postconviction
court to make findings relative to whether due process considerations tolled the
statute of limitations. See Wortman v. State, No. W2023-00017-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL
6318088, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2023). On remand, the post-conviction court
-found the petitioner was not guaranteed release, that the State did not attempt to thwart
the petitioner’s ability to have a parole hearing, and rejected the petitioner’s claim that the
State “acted in bad faith by attending and opposing his parole” because the petitioner
received the benefit of everything to which he bargained. Following a thorough review of
the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court denying the petitioner post-conviction relief.

Darren Brown v. State of Tennessee

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:11:48 +0000

Darren Brown v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2025-01466-CCA-R3-ECN

Authoring Judge

Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Originating Judge

Judge Chris Craft

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

The Petitioner, Darren Brown, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary
denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his conviction for first degree
premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. He contends
that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and that he is entitled to
relief on the merits of his petition. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

IN RE NIKKO E.L. ET AL.

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:16:23 +0000

IN RE NIKKO E.L. ET AL.

Case Number

E2025-01277-COA-R3-PT

Authoring Judge

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, P.J., E.S.; THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.; AND KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.

Originating Judge

Chancellor Kenlyn Foster

Date Filed

Mon, 04/06/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

State of Tennessee v. Lacy Frank Walls, III

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 19:40:49 +0000

State of Tennessee v. Lacy Frank Walls, III

Case Number

M2024-01603-CCA-R3-CD

Authoring Judge

Judge Timothy L. Easter

Originating Judge

Judge M. Caleb Bayless

Date Filed

Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

AJIT C. DESAI v. B. G. NAIK TRUST ET AL.

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 20:09:50 +0000

AJIT C. DESAI v. B. G. NAIK TRUST ET AL.

Case Number

E2024-00873-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Valerie L. Smith

Originating Judge

Chancellor Pamela A. Fleenor

Date Filed

Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

JASON DONALDSON v. SUSAN DONALDSON

Barbara.Doud@tncourts.gov — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 20:17:56 +0000

JASON DONALDSON v. SUSAN DONALDSON

Case Number

E2025-01117-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, J.; AND KRISTI M. DAVIS, J.; AND WILLIAM E. PHILLIPS, II, J.

Originating Judge

Chancellor Tom McFarland

Date Filed

Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Brian Howard v. State of Tennessee

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 20:32:43 +0000

Brian Howard v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2024-01387-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Matthew J. Wilson

Originating Judge

Judge Carlyn L. Addison

Date Filed

Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Heath Bell v. State of Tennessee

britney.roberson@tncourts.gov — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:17:01 +0000

Heath Bell v. State of Tennessee

Case Number

W2025-00149-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge

Judge Camille R. McMullen

Originating Judge

Judge Paula L. Skahan

Date Filed

Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Brandon Coleman, et al. v. CBL & Associates, Inc., et al.

Angie.Dempsey@tncourts.gov — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 20:10:11 +0000

Brandon Coleman, et al. v. CBL & Associates, Inc., et al.

Case Number

W2025-01080-COA-R9-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Kristi M. Davis

Originating Judge

Judge Joseph T. Howell

Date Filed

Wed, 04/01/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.

Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. v. BlueRoad Fontanel, LLC

ashley.boggess@tncourts.gov — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 18:08:02 +0000

Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. v. BlueRoad Fontanel, LLC

Case Number

M2024-01860-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge

Judge Andy D. Bennett

Originating Judge

Judge Thomas W. Brothers

Date Filed

Wed, 04/01/2026 - 12:00

Download PDF Version

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.