Tarrance Robinson vs. Neil Clement, et al M2001-00365-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a state prisoner housed at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution who was disciplined for possessing a deadly weapon. After exhausting his internal appeals, the prisoner filed a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings had violated his due process rights. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition. On this pro se appeal, the prisoner asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition. We have determined that the prisoner's petition does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Of The Evidence Is Otherwise. T E1997-00276-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Billy J. White, Chancellor
The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a 4 percent vocational disability to the body as a whole as a result of exposure to formaldehyde which caused permanent respiratory injury. The trial judge found the plaintiff failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained any psychiatric injury as a result of the accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Ronald Scott Revis v. Roane County, Tennessee, E2000-01709-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr., Circuit Judge
The trial court dismissed the complaint finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. On appeal it was determined the injury arose out of employment but did not occur in the course of employment. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Ryder Driver Leasing, Inc. v. Wilson E2000-00905-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Dale Workman, Circuit Court Judge
The trial court found the plaintiff had a compensable psychiatric injury. We affirm the findings of the trial court.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
G. Kline Preston vs. Garrett Realty Service, Inc. M2000-02350-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Davidson County -This matter comes to us on appeal from summary judgment granted due to Tennessee's lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff attempted to rent a condominium in Florida and sued Defendant in Tennessee for breach of contract after Defendant discovered a mistake in the quoted price and refused to rent the condo to Plaintiff for the quoted price. The circuit court determined that Tennessee had no personal jurisdiction over Defendant and dismissed the case. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
United States Pipe & Foundry Company v. Steven L. Camp E2000-01198-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams, Circuit Judge
The trial court found the employee had sustained a temporary injury to his back and awarded medical benefits to treat his symptoms. On appeal the employee insists his injury was of a permanent nature. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
James Fristoe v. Citizens Utilities Company, M2000-01736-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr.J.,
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull, Judge
The defendants appeal the judgment of the trial court awarding the employee, a telephone lineman, 95% vocational disability for injuries he sustained falling off a telephone pole. The defendants assert that the trial court erred in determining Mr. Fristoe's vocational disability rating by failing to give appropriate consideration to the findings of the treating physician in this case. For the reasons set out in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Charles R. Blackstock, pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of rape of a child. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-305, 39-13-522. The trial court imposed 25-year sentences on each offense. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 75 years. The sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping and the consecutive sentencing order are affirmed. Because the trial court erroneously applied certain enhancement factors to each of the sentences for rape of a child, the terms are modified to 23 years.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Larico S. Ficklin W2000-01534-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley & Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years as a Violent Offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial confession. We conclude that the defendant's initial arrest was without probable cause, and that the defendant's confession was obtained approximately 53 hours from his arrest without a judicial determination of probable cause. The defendant's confession was, therefore, erroneously admitted, and the error was not harmless. We reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.
Defendant challenges the denial of pretrial diversion by the District Attorney General and subsequent denial of relief by the trial court. We conclude that the defendant failed to file a petition for writ of certiorari and improperly sought to have the trial court consider matters not presented to the District Attorney General; thus, defendant has failed to establish that the District Attorney General abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with one count of the unlawful possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, and one count of the unlawful possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. A separate indictment returned the same day charged one count of the unlawful possession of marijuana. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he subsequently pled guilty to two misdemeanor drug possession offenses in connection with the charges, and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 11 months, 29 days. The trial court refused his request for judicial diversion, but granted him probation, with the condition that he spend 90 days in a halfway house. In a timely filed appeal to this court, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to three months in the halfway house as a condition of probation. Based upon a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment form to reflect the disposition of all charges against the defendant.
The appellant, LaQuenton Monger, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of first degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child abuse. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony murder conviction and twenty years imprisonment in the Department for the aggravated child abuse conviction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of felony murder and further challenges the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of felony murder. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the appellant's convictions of felony murder and aggravated child abuse and remand the cases to the trial court for a new trial.
Petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial where he was convicted of second degree murder. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Suzanne Jones vs. Metro Elevator Co. W2000-02002-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Mark Agee
This appeal involves claims for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in an elevator. The plaintiff brought suit against numerous parties including the company managing the building and the company under contract to service the elevators in the building. The circuit court granted a motion for summary judgment as to the company managing the building. The case proceeded to trial, however, against the company under contract to service the elevators. After the circuit court refused to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the elevator service provider. The plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment and the refusal to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and for the following reasons, we affirm.
Madison
Court of Appeals
Ella McCain, Conservator W2000-02218-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a personal injury case arising from a vehicle/pedestrian accident. A pedestrian wandered from the nursing home at which he resided and began walking alongside a roadway. The defendant driver saw the pedestrian as he was driving on the roadway. As the driver approached, the pedestrian suddenly stepped into the roadway and was struck by the defendant's truck. The pedestrian suffered significant injuries. The pedestrian's daughter, as his conservator, filed suit against the defendant driver. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, the defendant driver moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant driver was negligent. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant driver and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable jury might conclude that the defendant driver was negligent.
Fayette
Court of Appeals
Meloney Carr vs. Grady Carr W2000-02420-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a child custody case. The parties were separated in February 2000 and the father was awarded temporary custody of the parties' two minor children. After the trial, the mother was granted the divorce, but custody of the two children remained with the father. The father was required to pay rehabilitative alimony on the condition that the mother enroll in EMT classes. The mother appeals, asserting that the trial erred in denying a continuance when several of the mother's witnesses were unavailable to testify at the hearing, in awarding custody to the father, in making the rehabilitative alimony conditional on the mother enrolling in EMT classes and in the division of marital property. We reverse the award of custody to the father, modify the order on rehabilitative alimony, modify the division of marital property, and remand to the trial court to determine issues relating to child support.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
James Moody vs. William Lea W2000-02916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over an oral contract to lease farming equipment. The agreement provided that the defendant could use the plaintiff's farming equipment for an amount to be determined by a formula. The defendant began farming his land, intending to plant cotton, when the Mississippi River rose and the backwater covered his property. Because the backwater remained on the land for such a long period of time, the defendant could no longer grow cotton; he had to grow soybeans instead. Subsequently, the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the amount the plaintiff claimed under the contract, and the plaintiff sued. The trial court held that the contract was enforceable and that the defendant's performance was not excused by the doctrine of frustration of commercial purpose. The defendant appeals the ruling of the trial court. For the reasons below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court to modify the judgment.
Dyer
Court of Appeals
Carrie Marsh vs. Christopher Sensabaugh W2001-00016-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Roland Reid
This is a child custody case involving the child's natural father and a third-party, the maternal aunt. The trial court held in favor of the maternal aunt, upon a determination the father was an unfit parent. The court based its decision on the father's previous charge of contempt for failure to pay child support, previous visitation practices, and lack of knowledge regarding the child's educational status, such as her teachers, grades and attendance at parent-teacher conferences. Father appeals the trial court's decision. For the reasons below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
Comm. DOT vs. Frances Patrick & Frank Duncan W2001-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal involves the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in property acquiring the remaining one-sixth interest from her co-tenants under the doctrine of title by prescription. The circuit court made finding of facts indicating that the prescriptive holder of the property held the property exclusively and uninterrupted for more than a twenty year period. Further, the circuit court found that no co-tenants were under a disability to assert their rights during the twenty year period and that no permission was given to the prescriptive holder to possess the property. Based on these findings of fact, the circuit court ruled that under the doctrine of title by prescription, the prescriptive holder had acquired full title in the property. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Hardin
Court of Appeals
Howard Zoldessy vs. Ingrid Davis, et al E2000-02526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Upon the application of Howard Zoldessy, a temporary injunction was issued by the trial court against the defendants, Ingrid Davis and Arthur Davis. The Davises are the parents of Zoldessy's deceased wife and the grandparents of Zoldessy's daughter, Rachel. The injunction in question prohibits the defendants "from coming about [Howard Zoldessy] and his daughter, Rachel Zoldessy, or contacting him in any manner whatsoever." Following a bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants had committed willful criminal contempt by "coming about [Zoldessy's] residence on October 4, 1999." Each defendant was sentenced to 48 hours imprisonment for their contempt. Mr. Davis was also found in contempt for sending letters to Zoldessy and was sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of 48 hours. The defendants appeal the trial court's findings of contempt, as well as the sentences imposed. We affirm the finding of contempt as to the letters sent to Zoldessy; however, we reverse the finding of contempt for the defendants' purported "coming about" Zoldessy and his daughter.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Jeanne Alice Gabel vs. Todd Edward Gabel E2000-02585-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendant in this divorce case even though the defendant had filed an answer within the time frame set forth in Rule 12.01. We conclude that entry of the default judgment was not appropriate when the defendant timely filed an answer, and, therefore, vacate the judgment of the trial court.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
In re: Estate of J. Crawford Murphy vs. Robert A. Murphy, et al. E2001-01112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey D. Rader
In this case the Probate Court held that the personal representative of the Estate of Mae Thompson Murphy did not have authority to dissent from the will of her husband, J. Crawford Murphy, and thereby take an elective share of his estate. We find that T.C.A. 31-4-105 gives the personal representative this right and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, George E. Ratliff, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant alleges various errors by the trial court, challenges his sentence, and appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis on the ground of untimely filing. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the recent decision of our supreme court in Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001). We remand this matter to the trial court for a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Pursuant to State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999), appellate proceedings on Defendant's appeal as of right from his conviction are stayed, pending the trial court's ruling on the error coram nobis petition.
Washington
Court of Criminal Appeals
Philip Owens vs Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. E2000-02667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this putative class action suit, the plaintiff, Philip Owens, alleges that the defendant, Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. ("Bristol Speedway"), engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of souvenirs sold at its racetrack. The trial court denied certification of the alleged class and granted Bristol Speedway's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's individual claims. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Barbara Gaskins vs. Roger Gaskins E2000-02915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Ms. Gaskins alimony for a seven year period. Mr. Gaskins appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Greene County. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court as modified and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Roger Arthur Gaskins, and his surety.
