Amanda Gilreath, et al. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, et al.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County
Case number: E2015-02058-COA-R3-CV
Authoring judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Originating Judge: Judge W. Jeffrey Hollingsworth
Date filed: Wednesday, June 15, 2016
This is a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant hospital. The defendant hospital requested summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action. We affirm.
In re Tianna B.
Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Hamilton County
Case number: E2015-02189-COA-R3-PT
Authoring judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Originating Judge: Judge Robert D. Philyaw
Date filed: Wednesday, July 6, 2016
The Department of Children’s Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a father who had not seen his child in 13 years, and who had taken no steps to legitimate the child until after the petition to terminate was filed. After a trial, the court found that the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to visit and failure to establish or exercise paternity were established, and that it was in the child’s best interest to terminate the father’s rights. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred in relying on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) as a basis to terminate the father’s rights, but that the trial court correctly determined that the father abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). We affirm the trial court’s judgment in part and reverse it in part.
In re Tianna B. - concurring in part and dissenting in part
Case number: E2015-02189-COA-R3-PT
Authoring judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Originating judge: Judge Robert D. Philyaw
Date filed: Wednesday, July 6, 2016
I concur completely in the majority’s opinion terminating the parental rights of Myron J. T. based upon the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). I dissent from so much of the majority’s decision as holds that father does not fall within the ambit of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) and § 36-1-117(c). I would hold that father is within the class of persons covered by these latter two statutes. On this point, I adhere to the majority opinion authored by me in the case of In re F.N.M., No. M2015-00519-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 3126077 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Apr. 11, 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dale Smith
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County
Case number: E2015-01596-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Originating judge: Judge Don W. Poole
Date filed: Wednesday, July 6, 2016
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, the Defendant, Richard Dale Smith, pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. As a condition of his guilty plea, he sought to reserve the right to appeal a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Following our review of the record, we dismiss the appeal because the Defendant failed to properly certify his question of law in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2).