State v. Richard Hale Austin
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Memphis Publishing Company, et al, v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., et al. and John Morgan v. Cherokee Children & Family Svcs., Inc.
These two cases, consolidated for consideration, present two issues of enormous significance. First, we must decide whether a non-profit corporation that provides privatized services to a governmental entity is subject to the public access requirements of the Tennessee Public Records Act. The second issue concerns the authority of the state, acting through the Comptroller of the Treasury, to require said corporation to submit to a state audit. In Memphis Publishing Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., Memphis Publishing Company and others seek access to records belonging to Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation which contracted with the Tennessee Department of Human Services to help administer a state-subsidized day care program. In seeking access to the records, the plaintiffs rely on both the Tennessee Public Records Act and provisions in the contracts between the corporation and the state. In Morgan v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., the Comptroller of the Treasury, John Morgan, seeks to require the same corporation to submit to a state audit. As authority for the audit, Morgan relies upon the contracts at issue in Memphis Publishing Co. and upon 2000 Tenn. Pub. Acts. 960 (now codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-4-116 (Supp. 2001)), which authorizes the Comptroller to audit the records of entities which derive fifty percent or more of their gross revenue from state or local government. The trial -2- courts in the two cases found that Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc. was not a governmental agency, but that all records in its possession were state property pursuant to the contracts between it and the state. Additionally, the trial court in Morgan found that an audit was authorized by 2000 Tenn. Pub. Acts 960. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that (1) the contractual provisions at issue did not render the records public; (2) Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc. was not a governmental agency subject to the Public Records Act; and (3) retroactive application of 2000 Tenn. Pub. Acts 960 in Morgan would be unconstitutional. We granted permission to appeal. Because we have determined, for the reasons outlined below, that Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc. operates as the “functional equivalent” of a governmental (state) agency, we hold that all of its records are subject to the Tennessee Public Records Act and therefore |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Linda S. Reece v. Findlay Industries, Inc. and Harold Edward Tigue, Jr. v.Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine the propriety of the trial judge’s actions in the adjudication of these workers’ compensation cases. We hold that the trial judge failed to perform all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law in these consolidated cases by improperly delegating his authority to the clerk and master to adjudicate the cases. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the cases are remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Trial Court Reversed; |
Warren | Supreme Court | |
State v. Christopher Flake
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State v. Christopher Flake
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Eugene Sample v. State of Tennessee
We granted review in this post-conviction capital case to address two issues: (1) whether the |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Eugene Sample, et al., v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I fully concur in the majority decision but feel compelled to write separately to respond to the dissent’s characterization of the majority’s decision in State v. Workman, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001), as a “hastily considered decision – one brought on by the pressures of extraordinary circumstances – and it cannot be justified as a logical or natural progression of the law.” To the contrary, from even a cursory reading it is clear that the majority decision in Workman resulted from a principled application of established law to the facts of a particular case. The dissent’s claim that the majority opinion in Workman is not founded in logic or prior law is easily dispelled by simply considering the language of the opinion itself, rather than the dissent’s hyperbole. In concluding that consideration of Workman’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). In so holding, we stated as follows: As in Burford, to determine whether due process requires tolling in this case, we must consider the governmental interests involved and the private interests affected by the official action. In this case, as in Burford, the governmental interest in asserting the statute of limitations is the prevention of stale and groundless claims. The private interest involved here is the petitioner’s opportunity to have a hearing on the grounds of newly discovered evidence which may have resulted in a different verdict if heard by the jury at trial. If the procedural time bar is applied, Workman will be put to death without being given any opportunity to have the merits of his claim evaluated by a court of this State. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Eugene Sample v. State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting
In the majority’s opinion today, I find much with which to agree. For example, I concur in the majority’s holding that our decision in Wright v. State, 987 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1999), did not create a per se bar against all later-arising claims alleging suppression of exculpatory evidence. I also agree with the majority that a defendant may bring such a claim, not withstanding the running of the statute of limitations under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, so long as any delay in filing the petition for relief is reasonable under all the circumstances. Finally, I agree that the Middlebrooks error here is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard recognized by this Court in State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. 1993). However, I write separately to respectfully express my disapproval with the majority’s reliance on Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001), as authority for finding that the defendant in this case made a timely filing for post-conviction relief. I was one of two members of this Court who dissented from the decision in Workman, and I regret that it has been used today as authority to toll the post-conviction statute of limitations for a sixteen-month period. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
The Bank/First Citizens Bank v. Citizens And Associates
|
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
State vs. William Torres
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Eva M. Lemeh, Trustee v. Emc Mortgage Corporation
|
Supreme Court | ||
Robert Powell, Jr. v. Blalock Plumbing
|
Franklin | Supreme Court | |
Robert Powell, Jr. v. Blalock Plumbing
|
Franklin | Supreme Court | |
Robert Powell, Jr. v. Blalock Plumbing
|
Franklin | Supreme Court | |
M1998-01012-SC-R11-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
Kelly Rae Gray v. David Wayne Gray
We granted this appeal to address the propriety of a trial court's award of child support to a parent who is not the primary residential parent. We hold that the Child Support Guidelines require that child support may be awarded only to the primary residential parent under the parenting plan approved by the trial court. We further hold that the use of a comparative analysis of the parties' earnings is improper under the Child Support Guidelines. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the trial court for consideration of an award of child support to the primary residential parent, David Wayne Gray. |
Rutherford | Supreme Court | |
State v. David Troxell
|
Dickson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. David Walter Troxell
|
Supreme Court | ||
Julia Beth Crews v. Buckman Laboratories
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State v. William R. Stevens
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State v. William R. Stevens
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James Henderson Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton
James Henderson Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton were convicted of first degree premeditated murder in the death of Tommy Mayford Griffin. Dellinger and Sutton were both sentenced to death, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed their convictions and sentences. We entered an order designating the following issues for oral argument:1 1) whether the indictments violate the United States Constitution as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); 2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendants a severance or to grant separate juries for each defendant; 3) whether the trial court erred in dismissing the jury selection expert previously granted the defendants; 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized from Dellinger’s residence under a search warrant; 5) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(2); 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury at sentencing that the identity of the defendants in prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; 7) whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury as a mitigating factor that the defendants are human beings; 8) whether the trial court erred in refusing to answer the jury’s question about the manner of serving life sentences; and 9) whether the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the remainder of the issues raised by Dellinger and Sutton, we find no merit to their arguments.2 Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals in all respects. |
Blount | Supreme Court | |
Arthur Blair v. Marilyn Badenhope - Concurring/Dissenting
I fully agree with the majority’s conclusion that a natural parent cannot generally invoke the doctrine of superior parental rights to modify a valid order of custody, even when that order resulted from the natural parent’s voluntary relinquishment of custody to the non-parent. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that, in such circumstances, a natural parent seeking to modify custody must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred, which makes a change in custody in the child’s best interests. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Blair has failed to show a material change of circumstances in this case. The factors in the record supporting this conclusion are succinctly summarized in Justice Birch’s dissenting opinion as follows: When Blair originally agreed to surrender custody of Joy to Badenhope, his relationship with his daughter was uncertain and had only begun. Indeed, he apparently did not even see Joy until after her mother’s death. But in the many years that have passed since that time, Blair has expended great effort to create a strong, loving bond with his daughter. That bond has flourished to such a degree that Joy now has expressed an interest in living with Blair. Additionally, Blair has moved to Tennessee to be nearer to Joy, [footnote omitted] and he has purchased a new home in a neighborhood where Joy has many friends. Blair’s relationship with his daughter, his daughter’s interest in living with him, and even his place of residence have changed entirely. |
Greene | Supreme Court | |
Arthur Blair v. Marilyn Badenhope- Dissenting
With today’s holding, the majority declares, essentially, that a parent who voluntarily surrenders custody of a child forfeits any right to custody and from that day forward is shorn of parental status and relegated to a status no better than that of a non-parent, should the parent petition to modify the custody decree. I cannot agree. In my view, this decision condescendingly brushes aside the fundamental and constitutionally-grounded principle that a parent has a right to raise a child without undue governmental interference. Likewise, the holding disregards the presumption, widely recognized in law, that a child’s best interests are served most effectively, where possible, by placement with a fit parent. The majority’s holding places far too little weight on the parent’s fitness to care for the child or the parent’s efforts, no matter how extensive or admirable, to foster and nurture a loving bond with the child. Moreover, my views aside, the majority misapplies its own analysis to reach a result I find to be unsupportable and unjust. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. |
Greene | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralph Dewayne Moore
Ralph Dewayne Moore was indicted and tried on one count of disorderly conduct and two counts of aggravated assault. The jury was instructed that misdemeanor assault and felony reckless endangerment were lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault. Moore was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct, one count of misdemeanor assault, and one count of felony reckless endangerment. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. On appeal to this Court, Moore contends that: (1) felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault; and (2) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the conviction for felony reckless endangerment. We conclude that the offense of felony reckless endangerment is not included within the offense of aggravated assault committed by intentionally or knowingly causing another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by use or display of a deadly weapon; thus, we hold that the jury was improperly instructed. As a result of our holding, we find it unnecessary to address Moore's second contention. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court. |
Roane | Supreme Court |
