IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 5, 2018 Session

BLOUNT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. ERIC GLASGOW

Chancery Court for Sevier County

No. 16-5-159 Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor

No. E2018-01242-COA-R3-CV

The Notice of Appeal in this case indicates that the appellant, Eric Glasgow, is appealing 

from a final judgment entered on June 8, 2018. However, the order entered on June 8, 

2018, simply removes the case from the Trial Court’s active trial docket, subject to being 

re-activated to the active docket upon proper petition and/or application by any interested 

party. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JOHN W. MCCLARTY, CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., AND THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JJ.

Bryan L. Capps, Knoxville, for the appellant. 

Joel A. Vallejo, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

This Court was alerted by the Trial Court Clerk, prior to transmission of the 

record, regarding the substance of the June 8, 2018 order to which the appellant directed 

his Notice of Appeal. As such, and pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, this Court directed the appellant to show cause why this appeal 

 

1Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals provides as follows:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, 

may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by 

memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no 

precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it 

shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be 

published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any 

unrelated case.

11/28/2018
2

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the June 8, 2018 order is 

not a final judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. The appellant has filed 

no response to the show cause order. 

“A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing 

else for the trial court to do.’ ” In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 

2003) (quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

1997)). “[A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities 

of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at 

any time before entry of a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities 

of all parties.” Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Because there is no order in this case resolving any 

of the claims at issue between the parties, this Court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. See Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 

559 (Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules 

or by statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”). While the 

Supreme Court in Bayberry remarked that there is “no bar” to the suspension of the 

finality requirements of Rule 3(a) pursuant to Rule 2 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, there has been no argument made by the appellant in support of suspension of 

the requirements of the rule. See id. (noting that “there must be a good reason for 

suspension”). Moreover, the question exists whether such a suspension would be proper 

given developments in the law subsequent to Bayberry. See Ingram v. Wasson, 379 

S.W.3d 227, 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (“Lack of appellate jurisdiction cannot be 

waived.”) (citing Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 924 S.W.2d 632, 639 

(Tenn. 1996)). 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant,

Eric Glasgow, for which execution may issue if necessary. 

PER CURIAM