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

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 1 Ru 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. — 2 — 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.