Judgment And Must, Therefore, Affirm. Reagor v. Dyer County, 651 S.W.2D 700, 701 (Tenn. ( 1996 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF )
NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON COUNTY, ) Davidson Circuit No. 94C-2930
)
Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Appeal No. 01A01-9511-CV-00497
)
vs. )
DIANNA SADLER,
)
)
FILED
)
Defendant/Appellant. ) April 12, 1996
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
RULE 10 ORDER AND OPINION
This appears to be a proper matter for consideration pursuant to Court of Appeals
Rule 10(a).1
In this case, appellant, Dianna Sadler, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding
that her dogs are “vicious” within the meaning of Metropolitan Code § 8.08.010. The trial
court ordered appellant to remove the dogs from her premises and confine them upon her
father’s property in Cheatham County. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, but did not
file a Transcript of the Proceedings within 90 days thereafter, as required by Rule 24(b) of
the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence preponderates against the
trial court’s finding of fact that the dogs were “vicious.” However, the evidence and
testimony considered by the trial judge in reaching this conclusion are absent from the
record. It is well-established that in the absence of a transcript of the evidence, this court
must conclusively presume that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
judgment and must, therefore, affirm. Reagor v. Dyer County, 651 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tenn.
1983); Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. App. 1994); Coakley v. Daniels, 840 S.W.2d
1Ru le 10 (C ourt o f Appea ls). Affirmance W ithout Opinion. -- (a) T he C ourt, w ith the concurrence of
all jud ges particip atin g in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal
opinion when an opinion would have no preced ential value and on e or m ore of the following circumstances
exist and are dispositive of the appeal:
(1) T he C ourt c onc urs in the fa cts a s fou nd o r as foun d by ne ces sary imp lication b y the trial court.
(2) There is m ate rial evidence to support the verdict of the ju ry.
(3) No reversible error of law appears.
367, 370 (Tenn. App. 1992).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance
with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a). Costs in this cause are taxed to appellant, for which
execution may issue if necessary.
HIGHERS, J.
FARMER, J.
LILLARD, J.
2