Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.
Terry Littlejohn vs. Bd. of Public Utilities W2001-00011-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Appellant as a result of an electrical shock he received while roofing a house in Henry County, Tennessee. The Appellant filed a complaint against the Appellee under the Governmental Tort Liability Act in the Circuit Court of Henry County. Following a bench trial, the trial court assessed thirty-five percent of the fault to the Appellant and sixty-five percent of the fault to the Appellee. The trial court found that the total amount of damages sustained by the Appellant was $25,000.00. The trial court reduced the total amount of damages by thirty-five percent which resulted in an award of damages to the Appellant in the amount of $16,250.00. The Appellant appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Henry County assessing thirty-five percent of the fault to the Appellant and awarding damages in the amount of $16,250.00. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's decision.
Henry
Court of Appeals
Alfred Earl Vincent vs. Cheryl Lynn Vincent E2000-02529-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded custody of the minor child to father and divided the parties' marital assets. The wife appealed and we affirm.
Morgan
Court of Appeals
James Nelson s. Victoria Nelson E2000-02873-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Michael A. Davis
James Roger Nelson ("Husband") filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce ("Complaint") against Victoria Kay Goad Nelson ("Wife"). Wife filed an Answer and a Counter-Complaint for divorce. Wife admitted to Husband she had been and still was involved in an extramarital affair with a co-worker. Before trial, Husband obtained a temporary restraining order against Wife, and Wife obtained an Order of Protection against Husband. Wife testified Husband had subjected her to verbal and physical abuse in front of their minor children. Wife also testified Husband had threatened her with a gun while their children were at home with them. The Trial Court granted both parties a divorce, divided the parties' property, and awarded custody of the children to Husband. The Trial Court based its custody decision upon Wife's extramarital affair and the fact that Husband, at the time of trial, had the more stable home environment. The Trial Court failed, however, to address Wife's allegations that she was abused by Husband. Wife appeals the custody award and portions of the Trial Court's property division. We vacate, in part, and affirm, in part, and remand.
James Collins vs. Summers Hrdwe & Supply Co. E2001-00578-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
This is a suit by Plaintiffs James A. Collins and Gary Smith seeking damages from their former employer, Summers Hardware and Supply Company, in connection with their employment. The Plaintiffs contend that Summers Hardware made certain deductions from their pay which were contrary to their employment contract. Summers Hardware asserts otherwise. A jury found this issue in favor of the Plaintiffs and assessed damages, which the Trial Court, on motion of the Plaintiffs, altered upward. Summers Hardware appeals questioning whether the statute of limitations has run as to Mr. Collins' suit and whether both parties were estopped to press the claim or had waived their right to assert it. Summers Hardware also contends the Trial Court was in error in increasing the jury award without giving them the option of receiving a new trial. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
State ex rel Mickey Phillips vs. Gwen Knox E2000-02988-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Ronald N. Murch
The Trial Court found Gwen Knox ("Knox") to be in civil contempt for failure to pay child support. This is the second appeal in this case. This Court, in State ex rel. Phillips v. Knox, No. E1999-00205-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 217936, at * 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2000), vacated and remanded the Trial Court's dismissal of Knox's Second Petition to Vacate and Modify the Trial Court's order finding that Knox was in contempt for failure to pay child support. On remand, the Trial Court denied Knox's petition, again holding, among other things, Knox in civil contempt but reducing Knox's incarceration time for contempt from thirty days to ten days and her purge amount from $1,000 to $100. Knox appeals. We reverse, in part, and affirm, in part.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Gwen Lay vs. Mark Lay, et al E2000-02914-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John D. Mcafee
In this case the second wife of Mark Lindsay Lay seeks an increase in child support for their child. Because an attack was made on the constitutionality of the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, the Attorney General of the State was permitted to intervene. Although neither the former wife nor Mr. Lay appeals, the Attorney General does appeal. We vacate the judgment insofar as it addresses the constitutional issue before the Trial Court, and remand.
Campbell
Court of Appeals
Direct Insurance Co. vs. George Brown E2001-00412-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
Trial Court declared coverage under policy issued by plaintiff to defendant for a motor vehicle accident, holding the vehicle operated by defendant was a replacement vehicle. On appeal, we reverse.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Roy Shanks vs. Hazel Albert E2001-00066-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Roy Michael Shanks appeals dismissal of his suit seeking to overturn a determination of the Board of Review that he was not entitled to unemployment compensation because of misconduct. We concur in the determination of the Chancellor and affirm.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Lisa Heath vs. Memphis Radiology W2000-02770-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff sued physician, radiological group and hospital, alleging failure to discover and diagnose her malady resulting in permanent physical impairment. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants on a jury verdict, and plaintiff appealed asserting evidentiary errors and the failure of the trial judge to perform his duty as the thirteenth juror. We affirm
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Shirley Pegues vs. Lester Graves W2000-02831-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued physician when wife became pregnant after physician had performed a pregnancy avoidance procedure and allegedly guaranteed the results thereof. Defendant moved for a directed verdict which the trial court granted, but plaintiffs contend that it was granted after plaintiffs took a nonsuit. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Estate of James Kirk vs. James Lowe W2000-02858-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The Plaintiffs in this case sued "John Doe," an unknown driver, for injuries and damages resulting from the death of Plaintiffs' decedent. Process was served on decedent's uninsured motorist insurance carrier pursuant to Tennessee's Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage statutes. More than one year after the accident, the identity of the "John Doe" was discovered and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming him as Defendant. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that he was never an uninsured motorist, but at all pertinent times was insured, and that the one-year statute of limitations had expired. The trial court denied the motion, and we reverse.
Benton
Court of Appeals
Union Planters vs. Bettye Dedman W2001-00411-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham
This case is a dispute over the correct valuation of the residuary portion of Testator's estate for purposes of determining whether it was sufficient to pay estate taxes where Testator had directed by Will that such taxes be paid from the residuary. Testator's executor submits that the correct valuation date is the date of death; that neither post-death income nor appreciation of assets in the residuary should be included in the valuation; that income tax paid by the estate on income with respect to a decedent (IRD) should be included in a calculation of the death tax fund deficiency; that attorney's fees incurred as a result of protracted litigation should be included in the death tax fund deficiency calculation. Executor asks us to determine whether such deficiencies are apportionable among those receiving gifts passing outside of probate. We hold that the correct valuation date of the residuary for the purpose of determining its sufficiency to pay the death taxes is the date of Testator's death. Post-death increases should not be utilized. If the residuary on the date of death was insufficient to pay the estate taxes, these taxes are apportionable among all those interested in the estate. We further hold that although the IRD income tax and attorney's fees reduce the estate, they are not includible in the death tax fund deficiency so as to be apportionable to recipients of out of probate transfers.
On September 25, 1998, the petitioner entered best interest pleas to four counts of child rape. For these offenses he received concurrent sixteen year sentences. According to the announced plea the convictions arising out of Pickett and Overton Counties were set to be served at thirty percent while the Putnam County convictions were at one hundred percent with the potential to be reduced to eighty-five percent. Within the statute of limitations the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered concerning the consequences thereof. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing and later denied the relief sought in the petition. It is from that denial that the petitioner brings the present appeal continuing to maintain that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After reviewing the record and applicable caselaw, we find that the sentences imposed are illegal and, therefore, reverse and remand the matter.
Putnam
Court of Criminal Appeals
Larry Wade v. State of Tennessee M2000-01260-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman
The petitioner, Larry Wade, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserts that the ineffective assistance of counsel and the unknowing and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas entitle him to relief from his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
The petitioner, Deborah Louise Reese, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were neither voluntarily nor knowingly made. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The petitioner now appeals this ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
The appellant, Melvin E. Beard, was convicted in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of the sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of crack cocaine, a class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of two thousand dollars ($2000). On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the portion of an audio tape recording of the drug transaction that occurred outside the presence of the appellant; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant's motion for mistrial; and (4) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Darlene Renee Blackhurst, pled guilty to second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days, to be served on intensive probation following a mandatory period of 45 days in confinement for the DUI second offense. In this appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred when it placed Defendant on full probation because the trial court failed to properly consider the victim's testimony during the sentencing hearing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court did err in its application of the law concerning victims' statements and in granting probation for the full time remaining in Defendant's sentence following confinement. However, our conclusion regarding the impropriety of probation is based on sentencing considerations other than the testimony of the victim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment regarding the manner of service of Defendant's sentence and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Defendant should be incarcerated for the full term of her sentence or, in the alternative, serve the balance of her sentence in split confinement.
State v. Mark Doolen M2000-01953-COA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
A thirteen-year-old boy was convicted of vandalism in juvenile court, and was ordered to pay restitution of over $6,600. He claimed that the amount of restitution was excessive, and appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the juvenile court's determination. We affirm the order of restitution, but modify the amount, for the reasons set out below.
Dickson
Court of Appeals
James Ray vs. Billy Williams W2000-03000-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This case involves the doctrine of promissory fraud. The plaintiff service station owner claimed that the defendant rental trailer company fraudulently induced him into entering into a contract to operate a rental trailer dealership by orally assuring him that his dealership rights would be exclusive in Ripley, Tennessee. At the bench trial below, the trial court admitted parol evidence of the oral assurances to show fraud in the inducement of the dealership contract. Based on that evidence, the trial court held that the rental trailer company had committed promissory fraud and awarded damages to the plaintiff service station owner. The rental trailer company now appeals. We affirm the finding of promissory fraud, but reverse in part the damage award.
Lauderdale
Court of Appeals
Guy Varnadoe vs. Shelton McGhee Jr. W2001-00075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim brought by the Appellee against the Appellants in the Chancery Court of Shelby County. The trial court entered a consent order, referring the case to a special master. Pursuant to the consent order, the trial court directed the special master to conduct an investigation and report his findings to the trial court. The special master conducted an investigation and submitted his report to the trial court. The special master concluded that the Appellee was entitled to full payment under the contract but that the Appellants were entitled to a set-off. The trial court entered a judgment in the Appellee's favor and gave the Appellants a set-off. The trial court ordered that the fees approved by the special master be divided equally between the Appellants and the Appellee.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
CH-00-1207-2 CH-00-1207-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Paul Seaton, et al vs. Richard Rowe, et al E2000-02304-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Monroe County -This is an action for specific performance of an option agreement for the sale of some farmland acreage, from which a 60-acre tract was excepted. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that the option agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds because the description of the excepted property was inadequate and that the deficiency could not be remedied by parol evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to "reopen the proof" to introduce evidence to support reformation of the description of the excepted property. The motion was denied. The plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the option agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds; (2) refusing to consider parol evidence of the location of the excepted property; and (3) refusing to "reopen the proof" on the issue of reformation. The defendants argue that the appeal is frivolous. We find that the option agreement is sufficiently definite to satisfy the statute of frauds and that parol evidence should have been admitted to locate the excepted property. We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
