Please enter some keywords to search.
| Neas vs. Kerns
03A01-9812-CH-00386
|
Washington County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Billy Steagall vs. Nancy Steagall
M1998-00948-COA-R3-CV
This appeal involves a post-divorce dispute regarding the custody a 15-year-old boy. In August 1997, the boy's father petitioned the Chancery Court for Marshall County to change the minor's custody because of his concern that the mother's attempt to home school the boy had undermined his education and development of social skills. The mother opposed the petition and requested an increase in child support. During the June 1998 trial, the father presented evidence raising serious questions about the progress of the child's education and development of social skills, as well as other aspects of the mother's approach to parenting. The mother presented no evidence of her own. Instead, after the close of the father's proof, she asserted that the trial court could remediate the acknowledged deficiencies without changing custody. Thereafter, the parties and the court discussed at length the provisions of a proposed remedial order, and the hearing was adjourned when the parties and the court believed they had agreed on the contents of the proposed order. Before the trial court entered the proposed order, the wife took issue with a provision requiring her to enroll the child in public school. The trial court informed the parties that it had understood that both parties had agreed to send their child to public school and that it would resume the trial if its understanding was incorrect. Rather than requesting the trial court to resume the hearing, the mother filed this appeal claiming that the trial court had infringed on her constitutionally protected right to raise her child. We have determined, in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a), that the mother is not entitled to appellate relief because she is, in part, responsible for the error and because she failed to pursue the reasonably available steps that would have nullified the harmful effect of the error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Lee Russell |
Marshall County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Patricia Anne Pehlman v. Gregory Lawrence Pehlman and Sobieski and Associates
3A01-9809-CV-00311
In this action Patricia Anne Pehlman essentially seeks a declaration that marital property awarded to her in a divorce is not subject to a lien in favor of the intervenor.
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Originating Judge:Judge Bill Swann |
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Janice Hillyer vs. Charles Hillyer
M1998-00942-COA-R3-CV
The issues in this post-divorce case arise because the former husband's waiver of military retirement pay in order to receive disability benefits cut off the former wife's receipt of her portion of the retirement pay which had been awarded to her in the distribution of marital property. The former wife filed a contempt petition, seeking to reinstate her portion of the benefits. The trial court, relying on Gilliland v. Stanley, an unpublished opinion from this court, denied her motion for contempt. In light of our Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. Johnson, No. W1999-01232-SC-R11-CV, 2001 WL 173502 (Tenn. Feb. 23, 2001), we reverse and remand.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:James E. Walton |
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| McNair vs. Smith
03A01-9804-CH-00122
|
Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | ||
| McKinley vs. Holt
03A01-9807-PB-00220
|
Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | ||
| Street vs. Waddell
03A01-9710-CV-00488
|
Washington County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| State vs. Antonio Ward
02C01-9808-CC-00233
Originating Judge:Whit A. Lafon |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Essie M. Butler v. Emerson Motor Co .
02S01-9805-CH-00045
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show she was entitled to compensation because of an alleged back injury.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The facts in this case are reasonably simple. The plaintiff, age 49, had been working for the defendant for 25 years. Several years prior to 1995 she injured her back at work. This injury is more historical than significant in the case before us. In January 1995, the plaintiff was working at a lathe, putting machine parts on the lathe and turning them. She began to experience pain in her back. She testified this was caused by having to twist her body side to side or back and forth in doing the work. Ultimately, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors and had several diagnostic tests and various treatments done. The most significant treatment was done by Dr. Dan Spengler, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the plaintiff as having instability of motion at the L4-5 section of her spine with some pinching of the nerve. Dr. Spengler was of the opinion that the cause of this problem was a degenerative process in a person of the plaintiff's age. He was of the opinion the plaintiff's work did not cause the problem. 1 The plaintiff also sued for carpal tunnel syndrome and was found to be entitled to compensation. That matter is not raised in this appeal. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George E. Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/14/99 | |
| State vs. Phillip Todd Swords
03C01-9807-CR-00239
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/14/99 | |
| State vs. Sharon Marie Shell
03C01-9803-CR-00119
Originating Judge:Stephen M. Bevil |
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/14/99 | |
| State vs. Bobby Dale Franklin, Sr.
03C01-9804-CR-00129
Originating Judge:James E. Beckner |
Greene County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. Anthony Bonam
02C01-9804-CR-00109
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
02A01-9807-CV-00179
Originating Judge:Robert L. Childers |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. Jamell Richmond
02C01-9806-CR-00198
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
02A01-9803-CV-00065
Originating Judge:George H. Brown |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. John Greer
02C01-9806-CR-00167
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053
|
Henry County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Originating Judge:Jane W. Wheatcraft |
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Originating Judge:Judge Julian P. Guinn |
Henry County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185
|
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| King vs. State
03S01-9801-CR-00001
|
Knox County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
|
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| Lovell Lightner vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00277
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/12/99 | |
| Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Wayne County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 |