| State vs. Bolden
02S01-9711-CC-00102
Originating Judge:Joe G. Riley. Jr. |
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| Terry vs. Niblack, et al
01S01-9709-CV-00180
|
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| Dept. of Human Services vs. Fineout
01A01-9710-JV-00582
Originating Judge:Burton D. Glover |
Robertson County | Court of Appeals | 11/16/98 | |
| Rice vs. Sabir
03S01-9709-CV-00110
|
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| State vs. Paul E. Mathis
01C01-9605-CC-00223
|
Franklin County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/16/98 | |
| State vs. Philip Cantwell
01C01-9701-CC-00035
|
Maury County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/16/98 | |
| Terry vs. Niblack, et al
01S01-9709-CV-00180
|
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| Rice vs. Sabir
03S01-9709-CV-00110
|
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| The Tennessean, et al vs. Electric Power Board of Nashville
01S01-9709-CH-00181
|
Supreme Court | 11/16/98 | ||
| Peggy Jean Bradford, v. James William Anderson and Myra Alea, In Re: Rachel Anderson, D/O/B 10/20/1990
01-A-01-9712 -CV-00689
This is a custody dispute between the child's father and the child's maternal grandmother, who was nominated as the custodian in the will of the child's mother. The Circuit Court of Coffee County awarded custody to the father and his mother. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Originating Judge:Judge Gerald L Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Court of Appeals | 11/16/98 | |
| State vs. Philip Cantwell
01C01-9701-CC-00035
|
Maury County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/16/98 | |
| Paul Smith vs. State
01C01-9712-CC-00578
Originating Judge:William B. Cain |
Lawrence County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| State vs. Sandy Cobb
01C01-9802-CC-00054
Originating Judge:Donald P. Harris |
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| Barnett vs. Barnett
01A01-9605-CH-00228
Originating Judge:Tyrus H. Cobb |
Bedford County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| Blick vs. Kent
01A01-9708-CV-00393
Originating Judge:James E. Walton |
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| State vs. John Taylor
01C01-9705-CC-00192
|
Marshall County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| Baltz vs. Knight
01A01-9606-JV-00263
Originating Judge:George L. Lovell |
Maury County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| Thomas Light vs. State
01C01-9712-CC-00577
|
Lawrence County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/98 | |
| State vs. Barton Hawkins
02C01-9711-CR-00430
Originating Judge:James C. Beasley, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/12/98 | |
| 02C01-9802-CC-00052Cecil
02C01-9802-CC-00052Cecil
Originating Judge:Jon Kerry Blackwood |
Fayette County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/12/98 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 11/12/98 | ||
| State vs. Gabriel Clark
W2000-02595-CCA-R3-CD
The appellant, Gabriel Antonio Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury for one count of felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery. Clark was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, following a sentencing hearing, received a twelve-year sentence for aggravated robbery. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. On appeal, Clark raises the following issues for our review: (1) Whether the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to exclude or redact a portion of Clark's statement to police which he contends was highly prejudicial and in violation of Tenn. R. Evid. 403. After review, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Roy B. Morgan, Jr. |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/11/98 | |
| Deborah H. Steele v. Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc., and David Twombley - Concurring
03A01-9709-CH-00395
The plaintiff, Deborah H. Steele (“Steele”), brought this action against her former employer, Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc. (“Superior”), and her former supervisor, David Twombley (“Twombley”)1, alleging that she was the victim of, among other things, sexual harassment, outrageous conduct, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. After various other claims were dismissed by the trial court2, the case proceeded to trial before a jury on Steele’s claim of sexual harassment against both Superior and Twombley under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. (“THRA”), and her claim of outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against Twombley alone. The jury found in favor of Steele on all of the remaining theories of recovery and awarded her $1.2 million in compensatory damages and $60,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also awarded Steele attorney’s fees and costs against both defendants. After Steele accepted a remittitur that eliminated the punitive damages award and reduced the compensatory damages award to $850,000, both Superior and Twombley appealed, raising in substance the following issues for our consideration: 1. Did the trial court err in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony from witnesses who did not have first-hand knowledge of the events in question? 2. Did Steele’s counsel make improper and prejudicial statements during closing argument, thus warranting a new trial?
6. Did the trial court err in not suggesting a further remittitur of the jury’s verdict?
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Originating Judge:Chancellor R. Vann Owens |
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 11/10/98 | |
| State vs. Paschal Hyde
01C01-9701-CR-00024
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/10/98 | |
| Henry A. Sherrill v. Pulaski Rubber Company
01S01-9802-CH-00035
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. The trial judge found the plaintiff was permanently disabled and awarded a lump sum judgment of $81,953.2 on November 3, 1997. The defendant says the record does not support the finding that the lump sum award is proper because the record fails to show that the lump sum award is in the plaintiff's best interest or that he can wisely manage the lump sum payment. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. The record in this case is sparse on the issue of a lump sum payment. The plaintiff testified he wished to pay off his mortgage and invest any remaining portion of the award. On appeal, the plaintiff's brief presents a mathematical computation showing how much the plaintiff would save if he payed off his mortgage. This was not presented at trial. The trial court made no finding of whether a lump sum award was in the plaintiff's best interest. This brings the case in line with the case of Huddleston v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 858 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1993), where an issue of a lump sum award was raised. The Supreme Court said in that case: "W hat is missing from the trial court's order, as well as from the record, is a determination that full commutation under these circumstances is in the injured worker's best interest, as required by T.C.A. _ 5-6-229(a), as amended (199)." Id. at 318. In Huddleston, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine what amount, if any, should be commuted and to determine if the plaintiff could manage the commuted amount. Further, the Supreme Court noted that the trial judge may well consider, if a finding of a lump sum is made, how to insure that the sum will be applied in the manner the plaintiff asserts it would be used. We remand this case to the trial court for such proceedings as are necessary consistent with this opinion. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jim T. Hamilton, |
Henry County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/10/98 |
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS
Please enter some keywords to search.