| SHERRY KAY HEPLER v. DONALD MERLE HEPLER
Clark Lee Shaw and Stephanie C. Hatchett, Nashville, TN, for the appellant, Donald Merle Hepler.
Pamela M. Spicer, Brentwood, TN, for the appellee, Sherry Kay Hepler.
This is a petition to modify custody. When the parties divorced in 2000, the mother received primary
custody of the partiesā three children. After the mother sought an increase in the fatherās child
support obligation, the father filed this petition to obtain primary custody of the children, alleging
a material change in circumstances. The father later amended his petition to include allegations of
physical abuse by the mother. The trial court declined to modify custody, finding the evidence
insufficient to justify modification. We vacate the ruling of the trial court and remand for written
findings on the abuse allegations, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-106(a)(8).
JOHN JAY HOOKER v. PHIL BREDESEN, ET AL.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Janet M.
Kleinfelter, Sr. Counsel, for the appellants, Phil Bredesen, Paul Summers Riley Darnell and Brook
John Jay Hooker, Nashville, Tennessee, pro se.
Defendants appeal the refusal of the Chancellor to impose Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against Plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
With concurring opinion
With dissenting opinion
RICK A. HUGHES and LISA J. HUGHES v. RICHARD C. POULTON and
Gary Vandever, Lebanon, TN, for the appellants, Richard C. Poulton and Annette L. Poulton.
Tommy Edmondson, Nashville, TN, for the appellees, Rick A. Hughes and Lisa J. Hughes.
This is a property dispute between next-door neighbors over a gate across a driveway easement. The
two neighbors shared a common driveway from the public road in front of both properties. After a
clash between the two neighborsā dogs, one neighbor erected a fence on the boundary line with a gate
across the other neighborās portion of the driveway. This lawsuit followed. The trial court enjoined
the defendant neighbor from placing the fence and gate over a portion of an easement that was the
only existing driveway to the plaintiffās residence on the adjoining property. The trial court found
that the gate was not necessary for the defendantsā use and enjoyment of their property, and held that
the defendantsā erection of the gate constituted an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffsā right
to use the easement. The defendants appealed. We affirm, finding that, although the gate may not
have been an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffsā right to use the easement, the evidence
does not preponderate against the trial courtās finding that it was not necessary for the defendantsā
use and enjoyment of the property.
BRADLEY LEWIS SLATON v. JANNA LYNN SLATON RAY
E. Evan Cope, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Bradley Lewis Slaton.
Richard L. Dugger, Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Janna Lynn Slaton Ray.
The father and primary residential parent of the partiesā two minor children appeals the denial ofhis request to relocate to Florida with the children. His stated reason is a better job opportunity with increased pay of seventy-five cents per hour. The childrenās mother opposes the move.The trial court determined the father spent substantially more time with the children, analyzed the case pursuant to Tenn. Code. Ann. ¤ 36-6-108(d), and concluded there was no reasonablepurpose for the move and the move was not in the best interest of the children. Thus, it denied the fatherās request and he appealed. We have concluded the evidence does not preponderateagainst the trial courtās findings and, thus, we affirm.
Corrected Case (Filing date was wrong)
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANE LEE DUCKETT
G. Earl Patton, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Dane Lee Duckett.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Blind Akrawi, Assistant Attorney General;
William Edward Gibson, District Attorney General; and Gary McKenzie and Kevin D. Poore,
Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
A Cumberland County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dane Lee Duckett, of
attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of
drug paraphernalia, and driving on a suspended license, and the trial court sentenced him to an
effective sentence of six years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence
is insufficient to support the convictions and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the
record and the partiesā briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
CHARLES GOODE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
R. Price Harris, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles Goode.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney General;
William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Lee Coffee, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Petitioner, Charles Goode, appeals the trial courtās dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
In this appeal, Petitioner argues that his counselās representation at trial was deficient because he
failed to adequately investigate Petitionerās case and failed to effectively cross-examine the victim.
After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JAMES YATES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
James Yates, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner, Assistant Attorney General; and
Elizabeth Rice, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Defendant, James Yates, filed a pro se pleading seeking to have a conviction and sentence set
aside as unconstitutional. The trial court treated the pleading as seeking a writ of habeas corpus and
summarily denied the Defendantās claim for relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We
affirm the trial courtās judgment.
TN Attorney General Opinions
Opinion Number: 05-163
Construction of Enactment Providing for Grant to the City of Spencer to Relocate CurrentlyPermitted Wastewater Discharge Point
TN Attorney General Opinions
Opinion Number: 05-164
Requirements for Utility Rates
TN Attorney General Opinions
Opinion Number: 05-165