Robert L. DeLaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
In this case, we are invited to decide whether the Tennessee Plan for election of appellate judges, codified as Title 17, Chapter 4 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, but most particularly because it contemplates “retention elections” for incumbent appellate judges. In general, the Tennessee Plan provides that an incumbent appellate judge may run for reelection unopposed on the ballot, provided the incumbent’s retention has been recommended by the judicial evaluation commission; the judge will be retained in office if a majority of those voting in the election for that judge’s seat vote for such retention. Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-4- 115(d)(1)(1994). It is the duty of all courts, including the Supreme Court, to pass on a constitutional question only when it is absolutely necessary for the determination of thecase and of the rights of parties to the litigation. Glasgow v. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 666-667, 383 S.W. 2d 9, 13-14 (1964). See also, Jackson v. Davis, 530 F. Supp. 2, 4 n. 1 (E.D. Tenn.), aff’d, 667 F. 2d 1026 (6th Cir. 1981). We hold that it is not necessary to address the constitutionality of the Tennessee Plan in this case, because it is not applicable to the facts of this case. For that reason, the Court of Appeals erred in holding the Tennessee Plan constitutional, just as the trial judge erred in holding the Plan unconstitutional. We reach this conclusion because the express provisions of the Tennessee Plan render it inapplicable to the election for which defendant Brook Thompson, State Coordinator of Elections, refused to accept a qualifying petition submitted by the plaintiff, Robert L. DeLaney. |
Supreme Court | ||
Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
|
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Alcazar vs. Hayes
|
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
|
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Fay Thomas Nutt v. Champion International Corporation
We granted this appeal to determine whether an employer is entitled to an offset of long-term disability payments against a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability. A 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 permits offsets against workers’ compensation benefits for payments made to an employee under an employer-funded disability plan. The plaintiff’s injury pre-dated the effective date of the statute. We hold that the amendment is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset in this case. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Fay Thomas Nutt v. Champion International Corporation
This cause came on to be heard upon the record on appeal from the Special Worker’s Compensation Appeals Panel, and the briefs and argument of counsel; and upon consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 of the Workers’ Compensation Act is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset against the worker’s compensation award in this case. |
Wayne | Supreme Court | |
Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee
We granted this post-conviction appeal to determine whether there is ineffective assistance of counsel where, at the express instruction of a competent and fully informed defendant, defense counsel does not investigate or present mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital trial. For the reasons provided herein, we hold that there is not. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Baptist Hospital, et al., v. Tennessee Department of Health and Department of Finance and Administration
We granted this appeal to determine whether the Tennessee claims commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ challenge to certain Medicaid reimbursements paid to them by the State. Upon review, we hold that the Tennessee claims commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because the plaintiffs’ challenge is based upon an assertion that a state Medicaid regulation is invalid under federal law, the Tennessee Department of Health was the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA"). |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Baptist Hospital v. Tennessee Departments of Health and Finance and Administration
We granted this appeal to determine whether the Tennessee claims commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ challenge to certain Medicaid reimbursements paid to them by the State. Upon review, we hold that the Tennessee claims commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because the plaintiffs’ challenge is based upon an assertion that a state Medicaid regulation is invalid under federal law, the Tennessee Department of Health was the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA"). |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Billy R. Phillips v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee
We granted this appeal to address whether the State may be liable for discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2) in a workers' compensation case. We hold that the State may only be taxed for costs expressly permitted by either the Tennessee claims commission statute or the Workers' Compensation Act. |
Supreme Court | ||
Billy R. Phillips v. State of Tennessee v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee
We granted this appeal to address whether the State may be liable for discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2) in a workers' compensation case. We hold that the State may only be taxed for costs expressly permitted by either the Tennessee claims commission statute or the Workers' Compensation Act. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Paul Dennis Reid and Christopher Davis
|
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Pike
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Bolden
|
Supreme Court | ||
Rice vs. Sabir
|
Supreme Court | ||
The Tennessean, et al vs. Electric Power Board of Nashville
|
Supreme Court | ||
Terry vs. Niblack, et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
Terry vs. Niblack, et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
Rice vs. Sabir
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Burns
The defendant, Kevin Burns, was convicted of two counts of felony murder and two counts of attempted felony murder. The jury imposed the death penalty for one of the felony murder convictions after finding that evidence of an aggravating factor -- that the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to two or more persons other than the victim murdered -- outweighed the evidence of mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury imposed a life sentence for the other felony murder conviction. |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth EugeneTroutman
While this case has ultimately been decided on a waiver issue, we granted this appeal to take the opportunity to address two very important issues of statutory construction in misdemeanor sentencing. The general issues may be framed as whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-210 apply to misdemeanor sentencing. Specifically, the issues have been stated as: (1) whether a trial judge must state on the record, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(f), what enhancement or mitigating factors were employed in setting the sentence length in a DUI case; (2) whether a trial court must make specific findings on the record, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann § 40-35-209(c), when fixing the percentage of a sentence to be served in incarceration under the misdemeanor sentencing statute; and (3) whether the appellate court erred in remanding this case for re-sentencing. We hold that §§ 40-35-209, - 210(f) are inapplicable to DUI sentencing and that the defendant's sentences should be affirmed. |
Washington | Supreme Court | |
Deborah Williams v. Tecumseh Products Company
The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel approved the trial court’s award of benefits to Deborah Williams, the plaintiff, who had suffered symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome related to her employment as an assembly-line worker for Tecumseh Products Company, the defendant. At issue are the causation and permanency of the worker’s injuries and the payment of discretionary costs related to the deposition of an examining physician. For the reasons appearing below, we adopt the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the issues of causation and permanency. Although we affirm the award of discretionary costs, we vacate the panel’s order invalidating certain local procedures of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District. |
Henry | Supreme Court | |
Victor James Cazes vs. State
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Premium Finance Corp. vs. Crump Ins. Ser. of Memphis et al
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
McCurry vs. Container Corp. of America
|
Supreme Court |
