Robert Cunningham, Jr., et al,. vs. Shelton Security Service, Inc., et al.
In this workers’ compensation case, the estate of the employee, Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., has appealed from a chancery court judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits filed against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc. The employee, who worked as a security guard for the employer, died of heart failure while performing his duties at a store. At the close of the employee’s proof, the trial court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the emotional stress experienced by the employee the night of his death was not extraordinary or unusual for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law, found that there was sufficient evidence of causation to warrant a trial and, thus, reversed the trial court’s dismissal. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for full Court review of the Panel’s decision. We granted the motion for review to consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing the employee’s claim on the basis that his heart failure did not arise out of the employment because it was not caused by a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual or abnormal nature, beyond what is typically encountered by one in his occupation. After carefully examining the record and considering the relevant authorities, we agree with the Panel and reverse the trial court’s judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e); Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel Affirmed; Judgment of the Trial Court Reversed and Case RemandedE. RILEY ANDERSON, C.J., |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Yvonne Knight
The defendant pled guilty to four counts of obtaining prescription drugs by use of a forged prescription, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration. The defendant contests the sentences imposed. We affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dorothy G. Mackie, et al. v. Young Sales Corporation, et al.
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding temporary total benefits and death benefits based on the maximum weekly wage where the employee did not earn any wages in the 52 weeks prior to being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. On appeal, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel concluded that the trial court erred in awarding benefits based on the maximum weekly wage because the employee was voluntarily retired at the time of his diagnosis, and that benefits were to be based on the minimum weekly wage. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that an employee's voluntary retirement does not preclude workers' compensation benefits for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and that the trial court properly awarded benefits based on the maximum weekly rate under the facts of this case. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton,
|
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Laura Mayshark Nichols v. Craig Alan Nichols
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Brian Keith Smelley v. Dan Rawls, Individually And
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Peggy Birmingham v. Porter-Cable Corporation
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
James Eakes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
|
Obion | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Betty Jeane Scott, v. Cumberland Health Care Center,Inc., d/b/a General Care Convalescent Center, et al.
|
Scott | Workers Compensation Panel | |
John Fiser, et al vs. Town of Farragut
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Vickie Sherman vs. American Water Heater Co., Inc.
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
James Fraysier vs. Karen Fraysier
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Jim Vines vs. David Gibson
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Henry J. White, Jr. v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William R. Clark v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. David Plunk
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Scott Shands
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony M. Freeman v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Wilson, Jr. vs. Martha Wilson
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Cleggins
The defendant, indicted for aggravated sexual battery for intentionally engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of thirteen, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and received a two-year sentence. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve ninety consecutive days in jail, with the remainder of the sentence suspended, and the defendant placed on three years' probation. Counseling was ordered as a condition of probation. The defendant challenges the sentencing imposed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his requests for full probation, service of his sentence of incarceration on weekends, or judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cedric Terry
A Shelby County jury convicted defendant of one count of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder and twenty years for each attempted first degree murder conviction. The two twenty-year sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the defendant's life sentence. In this appeal as of right, defendant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his identification by the two surviving victims, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) the length and consecutive nature of his sentences. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Wayne Lankford and Christopher Arthur McKeon
This case raises issues of first impression in Tennessee. The defendants are convicted felons from Montana who were sent to serve portions of their Montana sentences at a private, for-profit prison facility in Tennessee. Following their escape from the Tennessee facility, the defendants were each convicted of one count of escape, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605. The defendants now appeal their convictions, raising two interrelated issues: 1) whether Tennessee's escape statute makes it a crime for a prisoner who has not been convicted under Tennessee law to escape from a private prison in this state; and 2) whether they were unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. After a thorough review of applicable law, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605, by its plain language, applies to the escape of an out-of-state prisoner from a private prison facility in this state. We further conclude that the defendants, duly convicted of crimes in Montana and incarcerated at the private prison pursuant to a contract between the Montana Department of Corrections and a private prison company, were not unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley Blackwood vs. Patrick Martin & Hardee, Martin, Jaynes, Ivy
|
Madison | Court of Appeals |