WPC # VU:a % 0(w@4  , 0x4 0D 0J 0T: 0^ 0h 0rT 0| 0B 0 1uX U, 0d U,]U*B)DC AMlLv~K B D3v 0@ AO,{ 0DA D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX($ /012E34567ӀA Gav 3|xA(((25$ !        0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G !"  "   YYY FILED"XApril12,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !"   $         "Rule10(CourtofAppeals).AffirmanceWithoutOpinion.(a)TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirmtheactionofthetrialcourtbyorderwithoutrenderingaformalopinionwhenanopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalueandoneormoreofthefollowingcircumstancesexistandaredispositiveoftheappeal:(1)TheCourtconcursinthefactsasfoundorasfoundbynecessaryimplicationbythetrialcourt.(2)Thereismaterialevidencetosupporttheverdictofthejury.(3)Noreversibleerroroflawappears."XPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@ d))))'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA:Op Monaco  BA:Op Monaco ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &!!Xd&#!!Xd#"  7XXdd7\RA'\@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATNASHVILLEMETROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF ) NASHVILLEDAVIDSONCOUNTY , ) DavidsonCircuitNo.94C2930       ) Plaintiff/Appellee,   ) AppealNo.01A019511CV00497 L%&$;+'h|H:`  `L      )vs.      )       ) DIANNASADLER,    )       )  Defendant/Appellant.   )      򀀀@ RULE10ORDERANDOPINION 򀀀   ThisappearstobeapropermatterforconsiderationpursuanttoCourtofAppealsRule10(a). '    Inthiscase,appellant,DiannaSadler,appealsfromthetrialcourtsjudgmentfindingthatherdogsare viciouswithinthemeaningofMetropolitanCode8.08.010.ThetrialcourtorderedappellanttoremovethedogsfromherpremisesandconfinethemuponherfatherspropertyinCheathamCounty.TheappellantfiledaNoticeofAppeal,butdidnotfileaTranscriptoftheProceedingswithin90daysthereafter,asrequiredbyRule24(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure. AppellantssoleissueonappealiswhethertheevidencepreponderatesϜagainstthetrialcourtsfindingoffactthatthedogswere vicious.However,theevidenceandtestimonyconsideredbythetrialjudgeinreachingthisconclusionareabsentfromtherecord.Itiswellestablishedthatintheabsenceofatranscriptoftheevidence,thiscourtmustconclusivelypresumethattherewassufficientevidencetosupportthetrialcourtsjudgmentandmust,therefore,affirm.Reagorv.DyerCounty,651S.W.2d700,701(Tenn.1983);Leekv.Powell,884S.W.2d121(Tenn.App.1994);Coakleyv.Daniels,840S.W.2d7XXdXXd7367,370(Tenn.App.1992). Accordingly,itisORDEREDthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmedinaccordancewithCourtofAppealsRule10(a).Costsinthiscausearetaxedtoappellant,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.                򀀀        HIGHERS,J.        򀀀        FARMER,J.                LILLARD,J.