William Frank Crawford

This case involved a contract dispute between Robert J. Young Company and Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership regarding sponsorship of Nashville Predators hockey games. The parties initially entered a 1998 Sponsorship Agreement that included a force majeure clause covering player strikes, then negotiated a subsequent Letter of Agreement in late 1998 for a luxury suite, ten-year term, and related terms. When a players' strike occurred, RJY sought to cancel its obligations, prompting disagreement over whether the Letter superseded the original agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that the Sponsorship Agreement remained in effect and awarded no damages after finding mitigation, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the plain language of the Letter of Agreement showed it superseded the Sponsorship Agreement and remanded for further proceedings on claims and damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a husband and his wife's adult children over responsibility for the wife's nursing home and assisted living expenses after she developed advanced Alzheimer's disease. The parties had signed an antenuptial agreement before their marriage in which the husband agreed to pay for the wife's daily necessities. The wife had granted her children durable power of attorney, and they used her separate assets to cover some costs while seeking to enforce the agreement against the husband. The trial court ruled that the nursing facility expenses qualified as daily necessities under the agreement and ordered the husband to pay them; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the agreement unambiguous and the trial court's factual determination supported by the record.

family law

This case was a termination of parental rights proceeding in which the Tennessee Department of Children's Services sought to end Leigh Ann McAlister's rights to her two children after referrals alleging drug exposure and neglect led to the children's removal and placement in state custody. The juvenile court terminated the mother's rights on grounds of failure to substantially comply with permanency plans, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that McAlister had not fulfilled plan requirements such as completing drug and domestic violence assessments, maintaining sobriety as shown by repeated positive drug screens, obtaining stable housing and employment, and attending parenting classes. It also concluded there was clear and convincing evidence that termination served the children's best interests.

family law

This case involved a dispute over a $925,000 construction contract for installing sewer lines, water lines, roads, and site work in a Tennessee subdivision development. The contractor sued the owner for unpaid retainage, extra work, and other amounts after stopping work due to failed sewer line inspections, while the owner contested payment for changes without written orders and counterclaimed for breach. The trial court ruled largely for the contractor, but on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part (including on waiver of written change-order requirements), reversed in part (on the breach finding, topsoil claim, and discretionary costs), and remanded for further proceedings. The core reasoning centered on contract interpretation, the effect of the parties' conduct on modification requirements, and reallocation of prevailing-party status after partial reversal.

business & regulatory

This case is a divorce proceeding between Jan Marie Vaughn and William Daniel Vaughn, where the mother was granted a divorce on grounds of the father's inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court divided marital property, awarded the mother alimony in futuro, child support for two minor children (one severely disabled), required the father to acquire special equipment and training for visitation, ordered life insurance, attorneys' fees, and child support arrearages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of alimony and attorneys' fees but reversed the child support arrearage award, remanding for recalculation of child support and arrearages based on the mother's income and other factors. The core reasoning focused on the need for accurate computation of support obligations using proper guidelines and crediting prior payments.

family law

The case involved William J. Orr, a lab technician at Bridgestone/Firestone who sued his employer for statutory retaliatory discharge after being terminated. Orr claimed his firing stemmed from reporting quality concerns about truck-bus radial tires, while the company asserted it resulted from evidence that Orr had embezzled approximately $7,000 from a scheme involving the sale of tire casings to a vendor. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the employer, finding no dispute that Orr failed to show he refused to participate in or remain silent about illegal activity or that any protected conduct was the exclusive cause of his termination. The record showed Orr was encouraged to report tire issues (unrelated to the passenger tire recall), his concerns were investigated, and termination followed the embezzlement investigation.

labor & employment

The case concerned a high school student enrolled in a school district's work-based learning program who suffered severe injuries when pinned by a truck during maintenance work at a private repair shop. The student sued the McNairy County School District for negligence, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to enforce safety measures, and failure to warn of unsafe conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the undisputed facts showed the accident was not foreseeable by the district and that any alleged breach of duty was not the cause-in-fact of the injuries, as the student was merely standing in the bay when the truck's brakes failed.

torts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs who sued for injuries from a 2003 motor vehicle accident and sought to attach medical bills to their complaint under T.C.A. § 24-5-113 to create a presumption that the expenses were reasonable and necessary. The plaintiffs had actually incurred more than $4,000 in total medical expenses but attached only redacted portions of the bills totaling under that amount. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to strike the attached bills, ruling that the statutory presumption does not apply when total incurred expenses exceed $4,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute's plain language and purpose—to ease proof burdens only for small claims—require that the full bills paid or incurred be considered, and plaintiffs cannot selectively redact bills to qualify for the presumption.

proceduretorts & liability

Heather Hill sued her OB/GYN, another obstetrician, and their medical group for medical malpractice, alleging failure to obtain informed consent for a C-section and failure to provide proper care that allegedly caused a vesicouterine fistula. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after excluding the plaintiff's proffered expert witness for failing to satisfy Tennessee's locality rule under T.C.A. § 29-26-115 and later denied a request for voluntary nonsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly required competent expert testimony on the local standard of care and did not abuse its discretion in treating the summary judgment motions as pending and rejecting the nonsuit.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case was a common-law retaliatory discharge claim brought by Serena Rucker against St. Thomas Hospital, alleging she was wrongfully removed from her position as Patient Relations Coordinator after reporting an allegedly impaired nurse. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Rucker had repeatedly failed to follow her supervisor's instructions on mentoring unit managers, handling complaints through the proper chain of command, and aggregating data, which led to documented performance discussions and her eventual removal from the role. Even assuming her employment ended, the record showed no evidence that the protected reporting activity was a substantial factor in her departure, as she declined an offered nursing position and admitted the removal was unrelated to the incident.

labor & employment

This case involves a divorce after a twenty-eight-year marriage in which the wife was granted the divorce on grounds of the husband's inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court awarded the wife alimony in futuro and attorney fees based on its finding that she had no ability to earn income. The appellate court reversed the alimony in futuro award upon determining that the wife does have the ability to earn income and remanded for consideration of rehabilitative or transitional alimony, while affirming the attorney fees award.

family law

This case involved a dispute among the Cherry family over ownership interests in two Tennessee farms originally purchased by five brothers as tenants in common. After one brother, Mickey Cherry, died in 2001, his widow and children sued his brother Bobby Cherry, who produced a 1981 deed purporting to transfer Mickey's interest to him and began collecting the associated rents. The plaintiffs alleged the deed was either forged, the product of undue influence, or executed without consideration as a resulting trust for Mickey's benefit. The trial court ruled that the deed created a resulting trust in favor of Mickey's family, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no valid consideration, no evidence of adverse possession or hostile acts by Bobby, and insufficient proof of any partnership accounting that would support Bobby's contribution claims.

propertyfamily law

This is the second appeal in a breach of contract and tort case arising from a failed sale of the plaintiffs' home, where a forged contract, bounced escrow check, and repeated failures to close led to claims against the buyer, his associate, and the real estate broker and agent for negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Following a prior affirmance of summary judgment for the plaintiffs, the trial court on remand awarded compensatory damages jointly and severally plus prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability and damages findings, holding that the evidence supported the negligence determinations and that joint and several liability was proper for the broker and agent as master and servant, but reversed the prejudgment interest award. The core reasoning for reversing interest was that the plaintiffs had continued to occupy the property without out-of-pocket loss or loss of use of funds, while the defendants had not benefited from any of the plaintiffs' money, making interest inequitable under the circumstances.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In BEP Services, Inc. v. Carefirst Foundation, Inc., BEP sought reimbursement from CareFirst for operating expenses of a nursing home that BEP had managed and later purchased, claiming equitable subrogation after paying debts it was not contractually obligated to cover. The trial court granted summary judgment to CareFirst, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that BEP acted as a volunteer in making the payments to maintain business operations, without any fraud, accident, mistake, or legal compulsion, which under Tennessee law precludes subrogation. BEP had explicitly agreed in prior contracts that it would not be liable for those expenses.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved a medical negligence claim brought by Curtis N. Robinson and his wife against Baptist Memorial Hospital-Lauderdale. Robinson alleged that hospital staff failed to prevent pressure sores (decubitus ulcers) on his heels during a 2002 hospital stay for hip fracture surgery, leading to infection, painful treatments, and lasting effects on his mobility and quality of life. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages, which the trial court upheld. The hospital appealed, arguing errors in admitting evidence, improper closing arguments by plaintiffs' counsel, and insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary matters, the arguments did not warrant a new trial, and material evidence supported the jury's findings on liability and damages.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved Tennessee inmate Melvin Perry's challenge to a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of refusing a direct order to unload a truck, resulting in a fine, job reassignment, and segregation time. Perry filed a petition for writ of certiorari alleging due process violations, including denial of witnesses and inadequate procedures, after the institutional warden upheld the board's decision. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the disciplinary record showed Perry had waived his right to call witnesses, was represented by an inmate advisor, testified on his own behalf, and received a hearing summary detailing the evidence and reasons for the decision. The court concluded that nothing in the record indicated the board acted outside its jurisdiction or in an arbitrary, fraudulent, or illegal manner, so judicial review was not warranted.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Cassandra Rogers filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission after a car accident involving a state trooper's U-turn, but her pleading explicitly stated that she was not alleging proximate negligence by the trooper at that time and was only providing notice of a potential future claim. The State moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Claims Commission granted the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 because it did not assert that the claimant was entitled to relief, instead affirmatively disclaiming any current claim against the State, and that statutes allowing preservation of claims under comparative fault rules did not apply to excuse the deficiency.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a commercial lease dispute between Cummins Station, LLC and tenant Allison Batey over non-residential property used as a beauty salon. After Batey failed to appear in general sessions court, a default judgment was entered against her; on appeal to circuit court, she did not respond to discovery requests despite a court order to compel and sanctions, leading the trial court to enter a default judgment for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the default judgment, holding that it was based on Batey's deliberate refusal to comply with discovery obligations even after being granted extensions. The court also determined the appeal was frivolous, as Batey had no reasonable chance of success and appeared to be attempting further delay, and remanded for assessment of damages and costs against her.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a 1999 voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) signed by Jessie Glenn for a child born to Melinda Robinson, which established him as the legal father and led to a child support order. After genetic testing in 2005 showed he was not the biological father of that child, the juvenile court rescinded the VAP, terminated support obligations for the child, and addressed related arrearages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Tennessee Code Annotated § 24-7-113(e), a VAP may be challenged on grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact only within five years, and after that only on fraud; Glenn's challenge more than six years later on a mistake theory was time-barred. The court noted that the VAP statute imposes specific time limits that could not be circumvented by later DNA evidence in this instance.

family lawprocedure

The case involves a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed by O'Rane M. Cornish, Sr., against Home Depot after the company initiated bad check criminal complaints against him in Mississippi that were later remanded. The trial court granted Home Depot's motion for summary judgment, but Cornish appealed, arguing he never received proper notice of the motion because Home Depot mailed its filings, including the motion, to an incorrect address (3104 Shady Hollow Lane instead of his address of record at 3804 Shady Hollow Lane). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 service by mail must be made to the party's last known address, and Home Depot's use of the wrong address meant Cornish was not properly served and thus could not be bound by the summary judgment ruling. The court remanded the case for further proceedings without addressing the merits of the underlying motion.

proceduretorts & liability