____ _ _ | _ \ _____ _| |__ (_)_ __ | | | |/ _ \ \/ / '_ \| | '_ \ | |_| | (_) > <| |_) | | | | | |____/ \___/_/\_\_.__/|_|_| |_|
Title:Andrew Goins Remake
Created:Dec 9th, 2021
Created by: ft [Rich]
Views: 604
Comments: 7
Username: Anonymous - (Login)
Please note that all posted information is publicly available and must follow our TOS.
/\
/\
/\
/\
_`=='_
_-~......~-_
_--~............~--_
__--~~....................~~--__
.___..---~~~................................~~~---..___,
`=.________________________________________________,='
@^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^@
| | I I II I I | |
| |__I___I___II___I___I__| |
| /___I_ I II I _I___\ |
|'_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _`|
__-~...~~~~~--------------~~~~~...~-__
___---~~......................................~~---___
.___..---~~~......................................................~~~---..___,
`=.______________________________________________________________________,='
@^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^@
| | | | | | || | | | | | |
| |____| |____| | || | |____| |____| |
|__________________|____||____|__________________|
_-|_____|_____|_____|__|------|__|_____|_____|_____|-_ ____
RAN BY CHERRY & FEDERAL
ま FORMAT MADE BY CHERRY ま
ま REASON : PEDO ま
ま DOXER: fed#1234 ま
ま FORMAT: keaton’s wife#0001 ま
ま PROOF ま
~ 18 year old Andrew talking to a 14 year old girl: https://imgur.com/a/SSDyRqj
~ 18 year old Andrew talking to the 12 year old girl he dated: https://imgur.com/a/DrJNHIA
~ Jerking off to minors: https://imgur.com/a/A5i6vz5
~ Downbad on twitter lmao: https://imgur.com/a/TooQA6i
~ Proof of address: https://imgur.com/a/TvY1vAF
~ Being a weird little nigger: https://imgur.com/a/i0pnjDW
╔————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╗
▄████▄ ▒█████ ███▄ █ ▄▄▄█████▓▓█████ ███▄ █ ▄▄▄█████▓ ██████
▒██▀ ▀█ ▒██▒ ██▒ ██ ▀█ █ ▓ ██▒ ▓▒▓█ ▀ ██ ▀█ █ ▓ ██▒ ▓▒▒██ ▒
▒▓█ ▄ ▒██░ ██▒▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒ ▓██░ ▒░▒███ ▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒ ▓██░ ▒░░ ▓██▄
▒▓▓▄ ▄██▒▒██ ██░▓██▒ ▐▌██▒░ ▓██▓ ░ ▒▓█ ▄ ▓██▒ ▐▌██▒░ ▓██▓ ░ ▒ ██▒
▒ ▓███▀ ░░ ████▓▒░▒██░ ▓██░ ▒██▒ ░ ░▒████▒▒██░ ▓██░ ▒██▒ ░ ▒██████▒▒
░ ░▒ ▒ ░░ ▒░▒░▒░ ░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ▒ ░░ ░░ ▒░ ░░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ▒ ░░ ▒ ▒▓▒ ▒ ░
░ ▒ ░ ▒ ▒░ ░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ░ ░ ░ ░░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ░ ░ ░▒ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░
░
╚————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╝
i luv genesis
ままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままま
まままままままままま-------まままままままままま
み Introduction み
み み み
み Victim's Info み
み み み
み Parent Info み
み み み
み Property Info み
み み み
まままままままままま-------まままままままままま
ままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままままま
╔——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╗
██▓███ ▓█████ ██▀███ ██████ ▒█████ ███▄ █ ▄▄▄ ██▓ ██▓ ███▄ █ █████▒▒█████
▓██░ ██▒▓█ ▀ ▓██ ▒ ██▒▒██ ▒ ▒██▒ ██▒ ██ ▀█ █ ▒████▄ ▓██▒ ▓██▒ ██ ▀█ █ ▓██ ▒▒██▒ ██▒
▓██░ ██▓▒▒███ ▓██ ░▄█ ▒░ ▓██▄ ▒██░ ██▒▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒██ ▀█▄ ▒██░ ▒██▒▓██ ▀█ ██▒▒████ ░▒██░ ██▒
▒██▄█▓▒ ▒▒▓█ ▄ ▒██▀▀█▄ ▒ ██▒▒██ ██░▓██▒ ▐▌██▒░██▄▄▄▄██ ▒██░ ░██░▓██▒ ▐▌██▒░▓█▒ ░▒██ ██░
▒██▒ ░ ░░▒████▒░██▓ ▒██▒▒██████▒▒░ ████▓▒░▒██░ ▓██░ ▓█ ▓██▒░██████▒ ░██░▒██░ ▓██░░▒█░ ░ ████▓▒░
▒▓▒░ ░ ░░░ ▒░ ░░ ▒▓ ░▒▓░▒ ▒▓▒ ▒ ░░ ▒░▒░▒░ ░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ▒▒ ▓▒█░░ ▒░▓ ░ ░▓ ░ ▒░ ▒ ▒ ▒ ░ ░ ▒░▒░▒░
░▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░▒ ░ ▒░░ ░▒ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ▒░ ░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ▒ ▒▒ ░░ ░ ▒ ░ ▒ ░░ ░░ ░ ▒░ ░ ░ ▒ ▒░
░░ ░ ░░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ▒
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░
╚——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╝
ま LOCAL PD // (615) 862-7744
ま ; NAME // ANDREW
ま ; LAST // GOINS
ま ; AGE // 18
ま ; BIRTHDAY // N/A
ま ; BIRTH PLACE // N/A
ま ; SCHOOLING // N/A
ま ; PHONE NUMBER // (615) 482-6845
ま ; SMS GATEWAY // 6154826845@tmomail.net
ま ; SSN // 408-02-XXXX - 415-98-XXXX
ま ; PAST PHONE NUMBERS //
(615) 889-1122
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported June 2007
(615) 286-1569
Landline
Dekalb Telephone Cooperative
First reported October 2007
(615) 942-9529
Landline
Comcast Phone of Tennessee LLC - TN
First reported September 2008
(615) 754-0949
Landline
Tennessee Telephone Company
First reported July 2015
(615) 882-5893
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported October 1993
ま ; SOCIAL MEDIAS //
SNAP ; wtfskiess
INSTA ; 1scryy
DISCORD ; atake#0004
ま ; ADRESS // 2322 Dennywood Dr
Nashville TN 37214
ま ; PAST ADDRESSES //
2932 Twin Lawn Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded June 2008
35 Norene Rd
Lebanon TN 37090
Wilson County
Recorded October 2007
Home Phone: (615) 286-1569
2932M Twin Lawn Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded July 2007
ま ; NEIGHBORS // N/A
ま ; ASSOCIATES // N/A
ま ; RELATIVES //
Ashley Goins
Age 35 (Jul 1986)
Brittney Goins
Age 22 (May 1999)
Darryl Goins
Age 30 (Sep 1991)
Darryl Goins
Age 61 (Jul 1960)
Deanna Braden
Age 43 (Aug 1978)
Donna Goins
Age 64 (Mar 1957)
Rebecca Goins
Age 58 (Jan 1963)
Sabrina Austin
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
Cheryl Pate
Age 57 (Aug 1964)
Christopher Moore
Age 43 (Oct 1978)
Daryl Braden
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
David Moore
Age 65 (Apr 1956)
Donna Moore
Age 64 (Aug 1957)
Earl Nelson
Age 67 (Jan 1954)
Fostena Goins
Age 45 (Mar 1976)
ま ; EDUCATION // N/A
ま ; VOTER RECORDS // N/A
ま ; COURT RECORDS //
Butler County, Ohio Court Record
AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT, JAMES GOINS FILED ATTORNEY: SCHEPER, ANDREW C (0082404
DISP DATE ADDRESS 6200 CHERRY LANE FARM DR WEST CHESTER , OH 45069 ALIAS GOINS
ADDRESS SERVE ANY AGENT P.O. BOX 150769 NASHVILLE , TN 37215 ALIAS OHIO
Tennessee Supreme Court Record
MARNE S. MATHERNE, ASST. ATTY. GEN., NASHVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT IN ERROR. HOLMES
JUROR GOINS, THE OTHER AFFIANT, WAS FIRST OFFERED BY THE DEFENDANT AS A WITNESS
MR. GOINS STATED THAT THESE OCCURRENCES IN THE JURY ROOM DID NOT AFFECT HIS
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
WARLICK 01/03/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE DECEMBER 4
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLANTS, DONALD BERGE, MARTHA BERGE, AND DAVID
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY IN ALL OF THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS WAS ANDREW B. SANDERS
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
ROUSOS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS
LING SHEA, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLEE, KRISTI L. BOREN. OPINION I
QUESTIONED ANDREW ROUSOS EXTENSIVELY ABOUT MOTHERS TAX RETURNS AND TOLD HIM THAT
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
HARGETT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TENNESSEE SECRETARY OF STATE; MARK GOINS, IN
TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR STATE OF TENNESSEE APPELLEES
THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
BY THIS COURT. HOT BLAST COAL CO. V. WILLIAX, 10 TENN. APP. 226 ; NASHVILLE, C
OF DEFENDANT HIMSELF AND MR. JOHN C. GOINS, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO APPEARED
THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT, ANDREW WALKER WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT AND SAW DEFENDANT
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
III, ASST. ATTY. GEN., NASHVILLE, WILLIAM S. DOSSETT, DIST. ATTY. GEN., DAVID
DRIVEN BY PHILLIPS TO BE 75 MILES PER HOUR. AARON ANDREW, GENEVA ANDREW, HIS
FROM THE BRIDGE. MR. ANDREW DROVE HIS 1972 MAVERICK TO AN EXIT LEADING FROM THE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
APPEAL FROM THE CRIMINAL COURT FOR MCMINN COUNTY NO. 13-CR-144 ANDREW M. FREIBERG
ABOUT THE MILITARY. MS. CAROLYN GOINS, THE VICTIMS NEIGHBOR, TESTIFIED THAT ON
OUT, THE LAWNMOWER SHUT OFF, AND MS. GOINS HEARD SCREAMING AND YELLING. AFTER
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
DANIEL; JON ANDREW RUSSELL, ) M.D., ) ) APPELLEES-DEFENDANTS. ) BEFORE: GIBBONS
DEFENDANT JON ANDREW RUSSELL M.D. (DEFENDANT RUSSELL) (DE 75). FOR THE REASONS
COMPLAINT. GOINS V. CLOROX CO., 926 F.2D 559 , 561 (6TH CIR. 1991). THE PARTY OPPOSING
Tennessee Supreme Court Record
COURT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE. NOVEMBER 1, 2011 SESSION. MARCH 9, 2012. ROBERT
GENERAL, FOR THE APPELLANT, STATE OF TENNESSEE. SHAWN P. SIRGO, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
SHORT, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE; AIMEE D. SOLWAY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE AMICUS
District Court, E.D. Tennessee Record
INC. 126 F. SUPP. 2D 1090 (1999) ANDREW A. DOWNS AND MARIA DOWNS, PLAINTIFFS, V
R. OGLE, JR., LAW OFFICES OF CARL R. OGLE, JR., JEFFERSON CITY, TN, FOR ANDREW
DONELSON, BEARMAN & CALDWELL, NASHVILLE, TN, STEPHEN E EMBRY, BROWN TODD & HEYBURN PLLC
Tennessee Supreme Court Record
THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JUNE 2, 2015 SESSION VODAFONE
ASHLEY N. BASSEL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLANT, VODAFONE AMERICAS
TALMAGE M. WATTS, SENIOR COUNSEL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLEE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
SUSAN JO WALLS IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED
ANDREW C. COULAM, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; ROBERT J. CARTER, DISTRICT
CHEESES IN NASHVILLE, WHILE GEARHARDT AND STARRICK KILLED THE VICTIM, IN ORDER TO
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 10, 2010 SESSION STATE OF TENNESSEE V. DANITA
COLAVECCHIO, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLANT, DANITA LANETTE WILSON, AND
WENDY TUCKER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLANT, TIFFANY NICOLE NORMAN
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
BENJAMIN DOUGLAS. ANDREW T. WAMPLER AND JOHN R. GRAHAM, KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE
LOWER COURTS, HENRY V. GOINS, 104 S.W.3D 475 , 479 (TENN. 2003); MYINT V. ALLSTATE
249 S.W.3D AT 358 ; DOE 1 EX REL. DOE 1 V. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF NASHVILLE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
CLINTON ANDREW HACKER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AN INMATE IN THE BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL
THE LAW PROSCRIBING THE CONDUCT. SEE STATE V. DEBORAH LEIGH GOINS, 2000 TENN
NASHVILLE, MAY 25, 2000). THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONSEQUENTLY, CANNOT PREVAIL
Court of Appeals of Texas Record
HOUSTON, TX, ANDREW J. MYTELKA, DANNENBERG ET AL, WHITE PLAINS, NY, ELIZABETH
SALPETER, MARK MCLAUGHLIN, ANDREW FRANCISCO, CA, AUTRY W. ROSS, YETTER & WARDEN
WAS NOT. ID. (AN ENRON EMPLOYEE WHO WORKED FOR ANDREW FASTOW) WAS MADE MANAGER
Supreme Court of Tennessee,at Nashville.
Victoria L. HENRY, et al. v. Timothy A. GOINS, et al.
No. M2000-02663-SC-R11-CV.
Decided: May 13, 2003
JANICE M. HOLDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J.,
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., joined. Robert L. Whitaker, Nashville,
Tennessee, for the plaintiffs-appellants, Victoria L. Henry and Peggy Henry. Paul M.
Buchanan and Julie Bhattacharya Peak, Nashville, Tennessee,
for the defendants-appellees, Jason M. Pope and Neal H. Dobyns d/b/a Residue Rescue. Eugene N. Bulso, Jr.
and Julie Murphy Burnstein, Nashville,
Tennessee, for the plaintiffs-appellees, Robert Orr-Sysco Food Services Company and Timothy A. Goins.
OPINION
The trial court entered an Order of Dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The order was entered with prejudice and without notice to the parties.
After the trial court reinstated Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules
of Civil Procedure (“Rule 60.02”),
Plaintiffs prevailed on the merits.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in setting aside the Order of Dismissal
and vacated the judgment in Plaintiffs' favor.
We granted permission to appeal. Because Plaintiffs presented adequate grounds for relief
under Rule 60.02,
we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating their claims.
Therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that
the trial court erred in setting aside the Order of Dismissal.
Accordingly, we reinstate the jury verdict, and we remand this cause to the trial court
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This case arose out of a traffic accident that occurred on November 18, 1996.
Three vehicles were involved: a Ford Escort operated by Victoria L. Henry,
in which Peggy Henry was a passenger; a tractor-trailer operated by Timothy A. Goins
and owned by Robert Orr-Sysco Food Systems Co. (“Robert Orr Sysco”);
and a tractor-trailer operated by Jason M. Pope and owned by Neil H. Dobyns d/b/a Residue Rescue.
Victoria and Peggy Henry filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee,
seeking recovery for personal injuries against Robert Orr-Sysco, Mr. Goins, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Dobyns.
Mr. Goins and Robert Orr-Sysco filed a cross-complaint against Mr. Pope and Mr. Dobyns,
seeking recovery for damages resulting from the same accident.
The case had been pending for approximately fourteen months when Judge Walter Kurtz,
on April 20, 1998, dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
The dismissal was in accordance with Rule 37.02 of the Local Rules of Practice of the Courts of
Record of Davidson County.1 No prior notice was given to the parties that the trial court was
contemplating such an action, and no hearing was held prior to the dismissal.
The dismissal was with prejudice because the order failed to provide otherwise.
See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(3) (stating that an involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute
“operates as an adjudication upon the merits” unless the trial court otherwise directs).
On May 19, 1998, cross-plaintiff Goins moved to set aside the trial court's dismissal of “the case.”
Mr. Goins asserted that the judgment should be set aside because he was never notified that the
court had contemplated dismissal. The trial court heard argument on Mr. Goins' motion on June 5, 1998.
The motion was unopposed. On June 16, 1998, Judge Kurtz entered an order limiting reinstatement of the
case to Mr. Goins' claims against Mr. Pope and Mr. Dobyns.
On June 15, 1998, upon learning that the Order to Set Aside Dismissal would not apply to all of the plaintiffs, counsel for the Henrys filed a separate motion to set aside the dismissal. The defendants opposed the motion. The Henrys argued that their counsel of record was never notified that the court was contemplating dismissal and that a paralegal employed by their counsel “inadvertently misread the Motion [of Mr. Goins], assuming it to have been filed on behalf of all plaintiffs.” As to the merits of the dismissal for failure to prosecute, the Henrys submitted an affidavit from their counsel stating that the parties had been actively negotiating alternative dispute resolution as a means of resolving the case.
Judge Kurtz heard argument on the Henrys' motion to set aside the dismissal on July 17, 1998,
and granted their motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Rule 60.02”) on August 27, 1998. Robert Orr-Sysco requested an interlocutory appeal of the order
reinstating the Henrys' claims. Permission to appeal was denied.
The case was set for trial before Judge Hamilton Gayden, and the Henrys prevailed on the merits.
Robert Orr-Sysco appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that under Rule 60.02 “the conduct of the paralegal cannot be treated as
excusable neglect.” On this basis, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's reinstatement
of the Henrys' claims and vacated the judgment in their favor. We granted permission to appeal.
For the following reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that the trial court erred in
setting aside the Order of Dismissal, and we reinstate the jury verdict.
II. Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny relief pursuant to Rule 60.02,
we give great deference to the trial court. See Underwood v. Zurich Ins. Co., 854 S.W.2d 94, 97
(Tenn.1993). Consequently, we will not set aside the trial court's ruling unless the trial
court has abused its discretion. See id. An abuse of discretion is found only when a trial court has
“ ‘applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning
that caused an injustice to the party complaining.’ ” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832
(Tenn.2002) (quoting State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn.1997)).
The abuse of discretion standard does not permit an appellate court to merely substitute its judgment for
that of the trial court. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn.2001).
III. Analysis
Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment
must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment in question.
Because the Henrys did not file a motion to set aside the dismissal of their claims within thirty days
after the Order of Dismissal was entered, their sole avenue for relief from the dismissal of their
claims became a motion in accordance with Rule 60.02. Rule 60.02 provides relief from final
judgments as follows:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal
representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) fraud (whether heretofore
denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(3) the judgment is void; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged,
or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated,
or it is no longer equitable that a judgment should have prospective application;
or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one year
after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.
It is clear from the content of the Henrys' Motion to Set Aside Dismissal that they sought
relief pursuant to Rule 60.02, even though the motion did not mention this rule.
Moreover, the trial court considered the Henrys' motion as a motion pursuant to Rule 60.02.
Because the Henrys' request for relief did not mention Rule 60.02, they also failed to specify
the section of the rule upon which they were relying.
It is apparent, however, that the Henrys sought relief from final judgment under Rule 60.02(1).
“[M]istake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” is a ground for relief from a final
judgment under Rule 60.02(1). Among other reasons for relief, the Henrys alleged that the
“excusable neglect and inadvertent mistake” of a paralegal employed by their counsel
caused them to fail to join the Motion to Set Aside Dismissal filed by Mr. Goins.
In an affidavit, the paralegal stated that she “inadvertently misread the Motion
[of Mr. Goins], assuming it to have been filed on behalf of all plaintiffs.”
The Court of Appeals held that the paralegal's conduct was not a sufficient basis for post-judgment relief. We agree that the paralegal's conduct in this case does not provide grounds for relief.
Although Rule 59.04 and Rule 60.02 are distinct, there is considerable overlap between them.
In this case, the grounds that Mr. Goins successfully asserted in support of post-judgment
relief were essentially the same grounds upon which the Henrys relied in seeking relief.
Both Mr. Goins and the Henrys argued that their claims should be reinstated because they
were never notified that the trial court was contemplating dismissal.
The motions of Mr. Goins and the Henrys requesting reinstatement of their claims were appropriately
construed as motions pursuant to Rule 59.04 and Rule 60.02, respectively,
according to the time when the motions were filed.
That the Henrys' motion would be untimely under Rule 59.04 is of no consequence if they meet
the requirements for relief under Rule 60.02(1).
Under Rule 60.02(1), the Henrys' request for relief must be evaluated to determine whether the court
may “relieve [them] from a final judgment.” The final judgment in this case was the Order
of Dismissal that was entered without notice. As relief under Rule 60.02 is available
“from a final judgment” (emphasis added), generally speaking, the grounds for relief asserted under
Rule 60.02(1) must have occurred at or before the entry of the final judgment and must
have resulted in the judgment's entry. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02; see also Thomas M.
McInnis & Assocs., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 349 S.E.2d 552, 555 (1986)
(construing a rule identical to Rule 60.02(1) and observing that excusable neglect must have
occurred at or before entry of the judgment and must have caused it to be entered).
The final judgment from which the Henrys seek relief under Rule 60.02(1) obviously
did not result from any “excusable neglect and inadvertent mistake” on the part of
the paralegal because the paralegal's conduct occurred subsequent to the entry of the Order of Dismissal. What occurred after the entry of the Order of Dismissal should not have been considered in determining whether relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(1) was justified, except as it might relate to whether the Henrys' Motion to Set Aside Dismissal was made within a reasonable time.2 See, e.g., Norton v. Sawyer, 30 N.C.App. 420, 227 S.E.2d 148, 152 (1976). Thus, even if the Henrys' failure to file a motion pursuant to Rule 59.04 were the product of the paralegal's “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” such conduct would not provide grounds for relief under Rule 60.02(1).
Although the paralegal's conduct is not a basis for relief from the Order of Dismissal,
the Henrys' Motion to Set Aside Dismissal sets forth other circumstances that may constitute
excusable neglect under Rule 60.02(1). In this case, the “mistake, inadvertence, surprise
or excusable neglect” upon which the Henrys properly relied in seeking relief is the “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” that resulted in the dismissal of their claims.
When a party has no notice of a critical step in a court proceeding, the circumstances may
make out a case of excusable neglect. See, e.g., Tenn. Dep't of Human Serv. v. Barbee,
689 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Tenn.1985) (holding that failure of notice constitutes excusable neglect
justifying relief from default judgment when combined with other requirements for such relief);
Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tenn.1976) (holding that failure to notify counsel of
entry of an order overruling motion for new trial constituted excusable neglect justifying relief
under Rule 60.02(1)). The entry of the Order of Dismissal was a critical step in the Henrys'
lawsuit because the order disposed of the case as completely as a judgment after a trial on the merits.
In determining whether lack of notice of the impending dismissal demonstrates excusable neglect
in this case, we will look to cases that decide whether default judgments should be set aside.
A dismissal for failure to prosecute is analogous to a default judgment.
When a defendant fails to answer a complaint, the plaintiff may obtain a default judgment without
a hearing on the merits. When a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case, the defendant may receive
a judgment of dismissal without a hearing on the merits. Both dismissals and default judgments
are drastic sanctions. See United Coin Meter Co. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R.,
705 F.2d 839, 845 (6th Cir.1983); Barish v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County,
Tenn., 627 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981). Neither dismissals nor default judgments
are favored by the courts. See Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866; Mfrs. Consolidation Serv., Inc. v.
Rodell, 42 S.W.3d 846, 864 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). Dismissals based on procedural grounds like
failure to prosecute and default judgments run counter to the judicial system's general
objective of disposing of cases on the merits.
See, e.g., Childress v. Bennett, 816 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tenn.1991)
(observing that “it is the general rule that courts are reluctant to give effect to rules of procedure ․
which prevent a litigant from having a claim adjudicated upon its merits”);
Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866 (stating that in the interests of justice, courts express a clear
preference for a trial on the merits).
Rule 55.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure permits trial courts to set aside default
judgments in accordance with Rule 60.02. Courts construe requests for relief pursuant to Rule
60.02 much more liberally in cases involving default judgment than in cases following a trial
on the merits. See Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866; Nelson v. Simpson, 826 S.W.2d 483, 485
(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). A request to vacate a default judgment in accordance with Rule 60.02
should be granted if there is reasonable doubt as to the justness of dismissing the case
before it can be heard on its merits. See Nelson, 826 S.W.2d at 486.
A request to vacate an order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 60.02 should be granted under the same
circumstances. Such liberality is especially warranted when an order of dismissal is
entered with prejudice and without such procedural safeguards as notice, considering that Rule
55.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure requires notice to be given before a default judgment
is granted.
Because of the similarity between default judgments and dismissals, we find instructive those factors
that are used to determine if a default judgment should be vacated under Rule 60.02(1).
Those factors include: (1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious
defense; and (3) whether the non-defaulting party would be prejudiced if relief were granted.
See Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 866. These same factors should apply in cases when relief from an order
of dismissal is sought under Rule 60.02(1).
When a party seeks relief from a final judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02, the burden of proof rests
with that party. See Federated Ins. Co. v. Lethcoe, 18 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tenn.2000);
Banks v. Dement Constr. Co., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn.1991). Furthermore, the party
seeking relief must offer proof of the basis upon which relief is sought.
See Lethcoe, 18 S.W.3d at 624; Banks, 817 S.W.2d at 18.
Our review of the record indicates that there was ample evidence before the trial court to support
its decision to reinstate the Henrys' claims pursuant to Rule 60.02.
Turning to the first factor, the Henrys were not personally at fault for the sua sponte dismissal of their
claims. The trial court's failure to provide notice that it was contemplating dismissal
precluded the Henrys from addressing the merits of the dismissal for failure to prosecute
before the final judgment was entered. In support of their Motion to Set Aside Dismissal,
the Henrys submitted proof that the parties had been actively negotiating toward settlement
and that, contrary to the trial court's contention in its Order of Dismissal, the case had not actually
been dormant for an extended period of time. As to the second factor, it is clear
that the Henrys had a meritorious claim.
When their claims were reinstated, the Henrys obtained a judgment in their favor.
As to the third factor, Robert Orr-Sysco did not assert any specific prejudice that would result
if the Henrys' claims were reinstated. Simply having to proceed to trial does not constitute
prejudice, nor does the mere passage of time. See Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 867;
Nelson, 826 S.W.2d at 486. The application of these three factors shows that the Henrys have
demonstrated excusable neglect, a ground for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(1).
In the case before us, the trial court exercised its discretion by determining that the dismissal
should be vacated and that a hearing on the merits should be held.
We have recognized that “the trial court is in the best position to assess the various factors that
should be considered in determining whether a default judgment should be vacated and its finding is
entitled to great weight.” Barbee, 689 S.W.2d at 867. Similarly, we believe the trial court is in
the best position to decide whether its Order of Dismissal should be set aside. Although the
“escape valve” of Rule 60.02 should not be easily opened, we have recognized that the purpose of
Rule 60.02 is to protect parties “ ‘from possible inequity that might otherwise arise from the
unrelenting imposition of finality imbedded in our procedural rules.’ ” Toney v. Mueller Co.,
810 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn.1991) (quoting Thompson v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 798 S.W.2d 235, 238
(Tenn.1990)). In addition, this Court has observed that the power to order sua sponte the involuntary
dismissal of an action “must be exercised most sparingly and with great care that the right of the
respective parties to a hearing shall not be denied or impaired.” Harris v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.,
574 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Tenn.1978). Had the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice, the
parties could have moved to reinstate the case or could have re-filed their claims within the time
permitted by the savings statute. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in reinstating the Henrys' claims because the circumstances of this case create a reasonable, if
not compelling, question of whether the dismissal should be set aside. See Nelson, 826 S.W.2d at 486.
The remainder of the issues raised by Robert Orr-Sysco are without merit.
IV. Conclusion
Because the record shows that the Henrys presented adequate grounds for relief under Rule 60.02,
we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the Henrys' claims.
Therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial
court erred in setting aside the Order of Dismissal. The jury verdict is reinstated.
The Henrys did not appeal the Court of Appeals' award of discretionary costs to Robert Orr-Sysco,
and this award is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent
with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Robert Orr-Sysco and its surety,
for which execution may issue if necessary.
FOOTNOTES
1. In 1997, Rule 37.02 of the Local Rules of Practice of the Courts of Record of Davidson County read,
“To expedite cases, the court may take reasonable measures to purge the docket of old cases.
The Presiding Judge, with the concurrence of the judges or chancellors affected, may make such necessary
orders and take such actions as are required to see that the dockets are uniformly purged.”
Rule 37.01 (1997) provided that “[a]ll civil cases must be concluded or set for trial within twelve
months from date of filing unless the court has directed a shorter or longer period for specific cases.
These time standards will be implemented by appropriate orders from the court.”
2. Under Rule 60.02(1), a request for relief must be made within a reasonable time and not more than
one year after the judgment was entered. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. The interval of time between
the Order of Dismissal and the Motion to Set Aside Dismissal was approximately two months.
We conclude that the Henrys' motion under Rule 60.02(1) was timely.
JANICE M. HOLDER, J.
╔——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╗
█████▒▄▄▄ ███▄ ▄███▓ ██▓ ██▓ ▓██ ██▓
▓██ ▒▒████▄ ▓██▒▀█▀ ██▒▓██▒▓██▒ ▒██ ██▒
▒████ ░▒██ ▀█▄ ▓██ ▓██░▒██▒▒██░ ▒██ ██░
░▓█▒ ░░██▄▄▄▄██ ▒██ ▒██ ░██░▒██░ ░ ▐██▓░
░▒█░ ▓█ ▓██▒▒██▒ ░██▒░██░░██████▒ ░ ██▒▓░
▒ ░ ▒▒ ▓▒█░░ ▒░ ░ ░░▓ ░ ▒░▓ ░ ██▒▒▒
░ ▒ ▒▒ ░░ ░ ░ ▒ ░░ ░ ▒ ░▓██ ░▒░
░ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ▒ ░ ░ ░ ▒ ▒ ░░
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░░ ░ daddy genesis
░ ░ kt is my egirl ~ fed
╚——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————╝
ま MOTHER(DECEASED) ま
ま ; NAME // DEBORAH
ま ; LAST // GOINS
ま ; AGE // 66
ま ; BIRTHDAY // N/A
ま ; PICTURES // https://imgur.com/a/zx8Dmju
ま ; BIRTH PLACE // N/A
ま ; SCHOOLING // N/A
ま ; PHONE NUMBER //
(615) 889-1122
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported May 2003
ま ; PAST PHONE NUMBERS //
(889) 889-1122
Landline
First reported July 1993
ま ; SOCIAL MEDIAS // N/A BECAUSE THE BITCH IS A SKELETON
ま ; ADDRESS //
2322 Dennywood Dr
Nashville TN 37214
ま ; PAST ADDRESSES //
253 Clovernook Dr, Unit B
Nashville TN 37210
Davidson County
Recorded March 2003
2235 Weona Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded January 1998
ま ; NEIGHBORS //
Carolyn Thompson
(615) 889-8049
2925 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Bryan Shah
(978) 869-2490
2924 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
T Gray
2927 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Shirley Tolbert
2928 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Teresa Barbro
(205) 433-3571
2923 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Vera Fisk
(615) 587-7751
2929 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Robert Meyer
(615) 883-3531
2922 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Amelia Marley
(817) 249-2285
2921 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
ま ; ASSOCIATES // N/A
ま ; RELATIVES //
Deanna Braden
Age 43 (Aug 1978)
Sabrina Austin
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
Timothy Goins
Age 64 (May 1957)
Alexandra Len
Age 28 (Apr 1993)
Ashley Goins
Age 35 (Jul 1986)
Brittney Goins
Age 22 (May 1999)
Christopher Moore
Age 43 (Oct 1978)
Darryl Goins
Age 61 (Jul 1960)
Daryl Braden
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
David Moore
Age 65 (Apr 1956)
Donna Goins
Age 64 (Mar 1957)
Edward Tillman
Age 45 (May 1976)
Fostena Goins
Age 45 (Mar 1976)
Fostena Kincaid
Age 81 (Jan 1940)
Gary Goins
Age 32 (Jan 1989)
Gregory Len
Age 61 (Jul 1960)
Jay Austin
Age 26 (Apr 1995)
Jessica Len
Age 33 (Jan 1988)
John Tillman
Age 46 (Jan 1975)
Kathleen Len
Age 61 (Oct 1960)
Lynn Moore
Age 75 (Nov 1946)
Matau Goins
Age 45 (Aug 1976)
Mataylin Goins
Age 20 (Mar 2001)
Matthew Mcdonald
Age 61 (Jun 1960)
Morgan Len
Age 30 (Mar 1991)
Rebecca Goins
Age 54 (Jan 1967)
Sabrina Goins
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
Sheri Moore
Age 63 (Feb 1958)
Stephanie Ellis
Age 42 (Mar 1979)
Stephen Moore
Age 34 (Mar 1987)
Willis Moore
Age 63 (Dec 1957)
ま ; EDUCATION // N/A
ま ; VOTER RECORDS // N/A
ま ; COURT RECORDS //
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
| COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE JONATHAN PATRICK HAYES V. DEBORAH
INGRID HAYES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JUNE 29, 2007
SESSION JONATHAN PATRICK HAYES V. DEBORAH INGRID HAYES DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) FILED PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) AUG 27, 2014 ) DEBORAH S
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. THE TWO PIRU GANGS SOMETIMES COLLABORATED AND OPERATED IN
THE GROUP. NEWSOME TOLD WILSON THAT MICHAEL GOINS A MEMBER OF A RIVAL GANG CALLED
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
DEBORAH LEIGH GOINS, NO. M1998-00758-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 218206 , AT *10 (TENN. CRIM
SENTENCING. IN GOINS, THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN
DEFENDANT IN GOINS, THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY PROOF AT TRIAL OF HOW HIS
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
REPORTER, SUSAN ROSEN, STATE COUNSEL, NASHVILLE, PATIENCE BRANHAM, ASSISTANT
RONNIE DAVIS AND DEBORAH BURNS ALSO WITNESSED THE INCIDENT. THEIR TESTIMONY AT
1995 WL 284048 (TENN. CRIM. APP., AT NASHVILLE, MAY 11, 1995); STATE V. JAMES E
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
GOINS IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 1999
CLERK V. * HON. FRANK CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE DEBORAH LEIGH GOINS, * (LEAVING THE
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE STATE V. DEBORAH LEIGH
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE STATE V. GOINS IN THE
L. HILL, JUDGE DSHANNON H. GOINS, ) ) (SENTENCING) APPELLANT. ) FOR THE
APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: DEBORAH HUSKINS JOHN KNOX WALKUP ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
DEBORAH S. HUNT, CLERK BRIAN A. STARKS, ) ) PETITIONER-APPELLANT, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM
1999, PETITIONER AND TWO FRIENDS WENT TO A NASHVILLE HOUSING PROJECT TO SELL
GOINS V. SMITH, 556 F. APPX 434, 440 (6TH CIR. 2014). BUT SEE MCKINLEY V. BUTLER
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
TENNESSEE; MARK GOINS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COORDINATOR OF ELECTIONS FOR THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. NO
GENERAL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR APPELLANTS. ON RESPONSE: EZRA D. ROSENBERG
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Record
16-5558 FILED JAN 27, 2017 DEBORAH S. HUNT, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF
COMPLAINT. GOINS V. CLOROX CO., 926 F.2D 559 , 561 (6TH CIR. 1991). THE PARTY OPPOSING
PRIOR TO THE INJURY-CAUSING EVENT. SEE AMOS V. METRO GOVT OF NASHVILLE AND
Ohio Court of Appeals Record
THE HEARING, DEBORAH HARRISON OF THE CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED THAT
EXCUSE HER. THE COURT IS EXCUSING HER FOR THIS VERY REASON. MR. GOINS: I UNDERSTAND
FEBRUARY 24, 2001, FROM CLEVELAND, THROUGH NASHVILLE, AND TO LOS ANGELES. THE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
DEBORAH A. TULLIS CHANDLER LAW FIRM ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 2502 MT. MORIAH RD
NASHVILLE, TN 37243 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS D. HENDERSON
801.7, AT 498-99 (EMPHASIS IN ORIGINAL); SEE STATE V. GOINS, NO. 03C01-9502-CR
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
DEFENDER; AND DEBORAH BLACK HUSKINS, ASSISTANT DISTRICT PUBLIC DEFENDER, JOHNSON
CRIM. APP. LEXIS 118, AT *14-15 (TENN. CRIM. APP., NASHVILLE, FEB. 9, 2001), THIS
SIMILARLY, IN STATE V. DSHANNON H. GOINS, NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00154, 1998 TENN
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
THE LAW PROSCRIBING THE CONDUCT. SEE STATE V. DEBORAH LEIGH GOINS, 2000 TENN
NASHVILLE, MAY 25, 2000). THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONSEQUENTLY, CANNOT PREVAIL
Court of Appeals of Texas Record
& CAPPUCI LLP, CORPORATION'S VARIOUS FRAUDULENT PRACTICES AND NEW YORK, NY, DEBORAH
SALKY, DEBORAH J. PA, THOMAS J. BLESSINGTON, OFFICE OF ATTY GEN, PHILADELPHIA
BANK IN NASHVILLE V. WEDGE GROUP, INC., 882 F.2D 1087 , 1091 (6TH CIR.1989) (MOVING
ま FATHER ま
ま ; NAME // TIMOTHY
ま ; LAST // GOINS
ま ; AGE // 40
ま ; PHOTO // https://imgur.com/a/zx8Dmju
ま ; SSN // 408-52-XXXX - 415-96-XXXX
ま ; BIRTHDAY // N/A
ま ; BIRTH PLACE // N/A
ま ; SCHOOLING // N/A
ま ; JOB // StorPlace Self Storage
ま ; PHONE NUMBER //
(615) 889-1122
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported June 2007
ま ; PAST PHONE NUMBERS //
(615) 286-1569
Landline
Dekalb Telephone Cooperative
First reported October 2007
(615) 942-9529
Landline
Comcast Phone of Tennessee LLC - TN
First reported September 2008
(615) 754-0949
Landline
Tennessee Telephone Company
First reported July 2015
(615) 882-5893
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported October 1993
(615) 885-7452
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported September 2008
(615) 504-5392
Wireless
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless - TN
First reported June 2008
(615) 482-5364
Wireless
Powertel Nashville Licenses Inc
First reported September 2021
(615) 586-7944
Wireless
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC - GA
First reported August 2016
(615) 482-6845
Wireless
Powertel Nashville Licenses Inc
First reported March 2016
(615) 316-9637
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported March 2016
(615) 316-9744
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported March 2016
(615) 391-1717
Landline
Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc dba South Central Bell Telephone
First reported March 2016
ま ; SOCIAL MEDIAS //
FACEBOOK // https://www.facebook.com/timothy.goins
ま ; ADDRESS // 2322 Dennywood Dr. Nashville, TN 37214
ま ; PAST ADDRESSES //
2932 Twin Lawn Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded June 2008
2322 Dennywood Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded June 2007
Home Phone: (615) 889-1122
35 Norene Rd
Lebanon TN 37090
Wilson County
Recorded October 2007
Home Phone: (615) 286-1569
2932M Twin Lawn Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded July 2007
2920 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded August 2001
2926 Lakeland Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded September 2000
1417 N Magnolia Ave
Ocala FL 34475
Marion County
Recorded September 2008
2235 Weona Dr
Nashville TN 37214
Davidson County
Recorded January 1998
ま ; NEIGHBORS // N/A
ま ; ASSOCIATES //
Buford Moser
Age 85 (Sep 1936)
Joyce Moser
Age 88 (Feb 1933)
Jay Austin
Age 26 (Apr 1995)
Sheri Moore
Age 63 (Feb 1958)
Tyler Austin
Age 24 (Dec 1996)
ま ; RELATIVES //
Deborah Goins
Age 66 (Oct 1955)
Spouse
Ashley Goins
Age 35 (Jul 1986)
Brittney Goins
Age 22 (May 1999)
Darryl Goins
Age 30 (Sep 1991)
Darryl Goins
Age 61 (Jul 1960)
Darryl Goins
Age 61 (Jul 1960)
Deanna Braden
Age 43 (Aug 1978)
Donna Goins
Age 64 (Mar 1957)
Rebecca Goins
Age 58 (Jan 1963)
Rebecca Goins
Age 54 (Jan 1967)
Sabrina Austin
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
Sabrina Goins
Age 44 (May 1977)
Sabrina Goins
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
Cheryl Pate
Age 57 (Aug 1964)
Cheryl Pate
Age 57 (Aug 1964)
Christopher Moore
Age 43 (Oct 1978)
Daryl Braden
Age 44 (Jan 1977)
David Moore
Age 65 (Apr 1956)
Donna Moore
Age 64 (Aug 1957)
Earl Nelson
Age 67 (Jan 1954)
Fostena Goins
Age 45 (Mar 1976)
ま ; EDUCATION // Stratford Comprehensive High School, Nashville, TN
ま ; VOTER RECORDS // N/A
ま ; COURT RECORDS //
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
| COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE VICTORIA HENRY V. TIMOTHY GOINS
L. HENRY, ET AL. V. TIMOTHY A. GOINS, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
INJURIES AGAINST ROBERT ORR-SYSCO, TIMOTHY GOINS, NEAL DOBYNS AND JASON POPE. MR
Tennessee Supreme Court Record
VICTORIA L. HENRY, ET AL. V. TIMOTHY A. GOINS, ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, ROBERT ORR-SYSCO FOOD SERVICES COMPANY AND TIMOTHY A. GOINS
TRAILER OPERATED BY TIMOTHY A. GOINS AND OWNED BY ROBERT ORR-SYSCO FOOD SYSTEMS CO
Davidson County, Tennessee Court Record
COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION TIMOTHY L WARNOCK RETAINED 615-320-3700(W) PLAINTIFF
EMERGENCY MOTION TO RESET HEARING 07/05/2018 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE TIMOTHY L
ISSUED TO: ASA ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC., NASHVILLE, TN - PERSONAL SERVICE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
STAMPS, JR. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON
THE CHANCERY COURT FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 37591 TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE NO
APPELLANT, KAREN D. STAMPS. ROSE PALERMO, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLEE, ROY
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
CHRISTOPHER S. LOVE IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HICKMAN COUNTY NO. 04-5086CR TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
ROAD. NEAR MIDNIGHT, SHE CAME TO THE GOINS HOME AND BEAT ON THE DOOR. UPON
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
TIMOTHY BOWLES, ROBERT PAYNE, AND RANDY MILLS. PAMELA S. LORCH, NASHVILLE
NASHVILLE DECEMBER 19, 2013 SESSION ANTONIUS HARRIS, ET AL. V. TENNESSEE
APPELLATE COURTS. SEE THIRD NATL BANK IN NASHVILLE V. KNOBLER, 789 S.W.2D 254 , 255
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
TIMOTHY THOMAS WARREN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 13, 2010
SESSION CRISTINA SUZANNE WARREN V. TIMOTHY THOMAS WARREN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
SUZANNE WARREN. MARK R. OLSON, CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLEE, TIMOTHY
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE HOLLY D. BUTLER V. TIMOTHY K. VINSANT JUVENILE COURT FOR
| COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE HOLLY D. BUTLER V. TIMOTHY K
VINSANT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 26, 2013 SESSION
District Court, M.D. Tennessee Record
STATES DISTRICT COURT, M.D. TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION. MAY 3, 2006. FREDERICK
RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, TIMOTHY L. MILES, BARRETT, JOHNSTON
& PARSLEY, NASHVILLE, TN, JEFFREY A. BARRACK, LEONARD BARRACK, BARRACK, RODOS
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
| COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE TADD TIMOTHY BROWN V. DAWN
VERONICA BROWN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS
JULY 1, 2016 TADD TIMOTHY BROWN V. DAWN VERONICA BROWN APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
AND JOSH PASCHALL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON
FROM THE HICKMAN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT NO. 11-CV-4446 TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NASHVILLE TENNESSEE, FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLEES TURNEY
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Record
DAVIDSON, III, JOINED, CONCURRING SEPARATELY. JUDGE TIMOTHY W. CONNER DISSENTED
LOCATION IS ROYAL INSURANCE . . . IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. . . . THIS WAS
DECISION IN HUDGINS V. NASHVILLE BRIDGE CO., 113 S.W.2D 738 (TENN. 1938) IN WHICH IT
District Court, M.D. Tennessee Record
COLUMBUS, OH, TIMOTHY K. GARRETT, BASS, BERRY & SIMS, NASHVILLE, TN, FOR
NASHVILLE DIVISION. MARCH 31, 2010. DAVID W. SANFORD, SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
DRESCHER & SHARP, P.C., NASHVILLE, TN, FOR PLAINTIFF. ADAM CARL WIT, KEITH C. HULT
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Record
BOARD IN WHICH JUDGE TIMOTHY W. CONNER JOINED. PRESIDING JUDGE MARSHALL L
CASES ON THE MERITS. HENRY V. GOINS, 104 S.W.3D 475 , 481 (TENN. 2003). EMPLOYER
NASHVILLE, TN 37243 TELEPHONE: 615-253-1606 ELECTRONIC MAIL: WCAPPEALS.CLERK
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Record
WHICH JUDGE DAVID F. HENSLEY JOINED. JUDGE TIMOTHY W. CONNER DISSENTED. ARTHUR C
NASHVILLE. THE APPEALS BOARD EXTENDS ITS APPRECIATION TO THE LAW SCHOOL FOR
OF CASES ON THE MERITS. HENRY V. GOINS, 104 S.W.3D 475 , 481 (TENN. 2003
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE. DECEMBER 8, 1994
NASHVILLE, FOR APPELLEE. RICHARD MCGEE (APPEAL ONLY), R.N. "BO" TAYLOR (TRIAL ONLY
NASHVILLE, FOR APPELLANT. NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL APPLIED FOR TO THE SUPREME
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
THE JUVENILE COURT FOR KNOX COUNTY NO. F9235 TIMOTHY IRWIN, JUDGE NO. E2011-00292
GOINS, 104 S.W.3D 475 , 479 (TENN. 2003); MYINT V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., 970 S.W
V. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF NASHVILLE, 154 S.W.3D AT 42. TO AVOID RESULT
Tennessee Supreme Court Record
ESPOSITO. GEORGE H. CATE, III, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, TIMOTHY J. RIVELLI, CORNELIUS
THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 SESSION HEARD AT
JOINED. RON H. PURSELL AND EDWARD A. HADLEY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, FOR THE
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
APPE LLANT. ) RECKLESS ENDANGERM ENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: TIMOTHY
CHARLOTTE AVENUE NASHVILLE, TN 37243-0491 JOH N W. P IERO TTI DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. STATE V. GOINS, 705 S.W .2D 648, 650 (TENN. 198 6
Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Record
STE. 1-B NASHVILLE, TN 37243 TELEPHONE: 615-253-1606 ELECTRONIC MAIL
JUDGE TIMOTHY W. CONNER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE APPEALS BOARD, IN WHICH JUDGE
MERITS). HENRY V. GOINS, 104 S.W.3D 475 , 481 (TENN. 2003) (EMPHASIS ADDED). THE
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
2010. CHARLES TIMOTHY TISHER, COLUMBIA, TN AND WILLIAM NELSON BATES, NASHVILLE
NASHVILLE. MARCH 25, 2009 SESSION. JUNE 1, 2009. ORDER ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUNE
TN, FOR THE APPELLANT, CITY OF COLUMBIA. PHILLIP LEON DAVIDSON, NASHVILLE, TN
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
TIMOTHY TISHER, COLUMBIA, TN AND WILLIAM NELSON BATES, NASHVILLE, TN, FOR THE
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 25
APPELLANTS, CITY OF COLUMBIA PHILLIP LEON DAVIDSON, NASHVILLE, TN, FOR THE APPELLEES
Court of Appeals of Tennessee Record
TIMOTHY SCOTT MESSER 09/27/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE
18, 2019 SESSION ANDREA (MESSER) SCHWAGER V. TIMOTHY SCOTT MESSER APPEAL FROM
TAYLOR AND JOHN N. BEAN, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, FOR THE APPELLEE, TIMOTHY SCOTT
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE TIMOTHY TERELL MCKINNEY
JUNE 3, 2008 SESSION TIMOTHY TERELL MCKINNEY V. STATE OF TENNESSEE APPEAL FROM
W2006-02132-CCA-R3-PD - FILED MARCH 9, 2010 THE PETITIONER, TIMOTHY TERELL MCKINNEY
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
DAVID LEON GRAVES IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
OF THE COURT, IN WHICH ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., AND TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ
U.S. 386 , 391-92 (1958)). IN STATE V. GOINS, 705 S.W.2D 648 , 651 (TENN. 1986
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Record
HAYES, JJ., JOINED. ROBERT BRANNON (AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL) AND TIMOTHY FRANCAVELLA
SEE STATE V. LEON GOINS, NO. W1999-01681-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1531111 , AT *2
AT *15 (TENN. CRIM. APP., AT NASHVILLE, MAY 13, 2003), PERM APP. DENIED (TENN
Court of Appeals of Texas Record
KAPLAN & VESELKA, RICHARD BRUCE DRUBEL, JR., BOIES SCHILLER TIMOTHY PFEIFER
TIMOTHY HAUSER, ROBIN SPRINGBERG SPAEDER LLP, WASHINGTON, DC, BARNES H. ELLIS, DAVID
BANK IN NASHVILLE V. WEDGE GROUP, INC., 882 F.2D 1087 , 1091 (6TH CIR.1989) (MOVING
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago