Eddie Phifer v. Board of Parole M2000-01509-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This is a pro se appeal from a denial of parole. Mr. Phifer alleges several problems surrounding his parole hearing that he claims violate his due process and equal protection rights and violate the ex post facto constitutional prohibition. Because a prisoner has no liberty interest in release on parole before the expiration of his sentence, due process protections do not attach to parole determinations. Because at the time of Mr. Phifer's crime and conviction, the law regarding parole gave total discretion to the Board and authorized denial if the Board found that parole would depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed, changes in Board procedure do not violate ex post facto prohibitions. Because the Board has provided a rational basis for denying in-person interviews for prisoners housed out of state, no equal protection violation was shown. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Curley Howse vs. Donal Campbell, et al M1999-01580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a prisoner challenging the conditions of his confinement and his treatment by employees of the Tennessee Department of Correction and the Northwest Correctional Center in Lake County. After the prisoner's suit was transferred from the Chancery Court for Davidson County to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, the various defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the case for improper venue. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed all the prisoner's claims. On this appeal, the prisoner asserts that his claims should not have been dismissed. We have determined that the prisoner has not properly perfected an appeal with regard to the dismissal of his claims against the Commissioner of Correction and three other employees and that the trial court correctly dismissed his claim against the medical director of the Northwest Correctional Center for improper venue. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Joseph Turley vs. Francis P. Marino, et al M2000-01684-COA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Appellant, Joseph Turley, was charged with two counts of criminal contempt by the trial court in an order issued May 3, 2000. The trial court appointed a special prosecutor to pursue this matter and appointed the public defender to represent the appellant. The trial on June 15, 2000 resulted in a trial court finding of guilty, after which the appellant was sentenced to 48 hours in jail. Turley appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Don Williams vs. Donal Campbell M2000-01821-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
A prison disciplinary board extended the release eligibility date of an inmate, after finding him guilty of assaulting a guard. He filed a petition for writ of certiorari which challenged the method used by the Department of Correction to calculate his new release eligibility date. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Larry W. Hopkins vs. Bd. of Paroles M2000-01956-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a prisoner's efforts to be paroled from his sentence for aggravated rape. After the Tennessee Board of Paroles declined for the sixth time to parole him, the prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court challenging the Board's latest decision and the procedure used to reach it. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the prisoner has appealed. We affirm the trial court's decision.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Betty J. Nash vs. G.L. Waynick M2000-02096-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
This appeal involves a dispute over the sale of a single family home in DeKalb County. The purchaser filed suit in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County alleging that the seller had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosures Act. More than two years after the first two summonses were returned unserved, the purchaser caused a third summons to be issued that was served on the seller. The trial court entered a $27,000 default judgment against the seller on June 21, 2000, after concluding that the seller had been properly served and had presented no defenses to the purchaser's claims. On this appeal, the seller, who has been representing himself throughout these proceedings, asserts that he did not violate either the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act or the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act and that the trial court erred by not considering his statute of limitations defense. We have determined that the purchaser's suit is time-barred for failure to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the case with directions that the purchaser's complaint be dismissed.
DeKalb
Court of Appeals
Rickey Cotten v. Board of Paroles M2001-00875-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Petitioner was arrested in Florida for grand theft auto while on parole under a sentence in Tennessee. After beginning his sentence on the Florida conviction in a Florida prison, the Petitioner filed a "request for leave to waive revocation hearing, admission to violation of parole and request to have parole hearing in absentia and affidavit" with the Board of Paroles of Tennessee. The Board did not respond, so Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus with the Circuit Court for Davidson County to compel the Board to render a decision regarding his parole revocation. The trial court denied the writ and dismissed the petition because mandamus was not the appropriate remedy and the Petitioner was not in custody of the State of Tennessee for the purposes of parole revocation. We agree and affirm the decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Bertha Smith vs. Harley Smith M1998-00937-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
The issues in this post-divorce case arise because the former husband's waiver of military retirement pay in order to receive disability benefits affected 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 husband reduced his payments to the former wife, who filed a contempt petition, seeking to reinstate the previously ordered amounts. The trial court considered the intent embodied in the divorce decree, and determined that the former wife should continue to receive the amount she received at the time of the divorce, despite the fact that the former husband no longer received "retirement pay." 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 affirm.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Johnny & Mary Jo Harper, et al vs. Melvin Sloan, et al M2000-01104-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William H. Inman
This appeal involves the determination of whether the trial court erred in determining that a pathway known as Jaybird Lane was a public road. Additionally, the trial court found that the road had not been abandoned and thus granted summary judgment to the Defendants. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the court below in all respects.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Janice Sadler, d/b/a Xanadu Video vs. State M2000-01103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
The owner of a business filed a claim in the Tennessee Claims Commission for the loss of the business caused by a construction project that temporarily hindered ingress and egress to the claimant's location. The Claims Commissioner awarded the claimant the value of her business after finding that the State had negligently prolonged the construction project and had created a temporary nuisance. We reverse.
Court of Appeals
Tony Willis v. Dept of Correction M2000-01397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Tony Willis v. Dept of Correction M2000-01397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
In this divorce case, Husband appeals from the trial court's decisions classifying, valuing, and dividing the parties' property incident to their divorce and asserts that he is entitled to an award much greater than the $250,000 granted to him by the trial court. Wife also appeals the trial court's classification and distribution of property, asserting that Husband was not entitled to any portion of her separate property and that there was no marital property. An additional issue was raised by a post-judgment ruling by a successor trial judge setting aside the order of the prior judge declaring the parties divorced. We affirm the divorce and reverse the award to Husband.
This case involves the alleged breach of an oral contract and a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Defendant's agent contacted the plaintiffs, an Elvis impersonator, the members of his band, and members of the Jordanaires to book them for a performance nine months hence. Plaintiffs reserved the time, but no written agreement was ever executed. Weeks before the performance, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that their services would not be required. Plaintiffs sued alleging breach of an oral contract and negligent misrepresentation and now appeal the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Defendant on both issues. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Angela Collins v. Timothy Pharris M1999-00588-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Durwood Moore
The petitioner appeals the general sessions court's denial of an order of protection and questions the proper avenue to appeal a general sessions court's ruling on an order of protection. We hold that, because the general sessions court has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit and chancery courts to hear petitions for orders of protection, this court is the proper one to hear an appeal of the grant or denial of such an order. Because we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's denial of the order in this case, we affirm the trial court.
This appeal involves the dissolution of an eighteen-year marriage by the Chancery Court for Lewis County. The trial court awarded the wife the divorce after concluding that the husband's continuing extramarital affair amounted to inappropriate marital conduct. To protect the "moral integrity of the marital relationship," the trial court granted the wife sole custody of the parties' two minor children and declined to grant the husband any visitation rights. In addition, the trial court ordered the husband to pay more than the minimum child support required by the child support guidelines because he was willfully underemployed and because he would not be exercising standard visitation with the children. The husband asserts on this appeal that the trial court's decisions with regard to custody and visitation, child support, and the division of the marital estate lack evidentiary support. We have determined that the trial court's disapproval of the husband's extramarital affair inappropriately colored its decisions regarding visitation and child support. Accordingly, we affirm the manner in which the trial court divided the parties' marital estate and reverse the trial court's visitation and child support awards.
This case is before this Court on appeal from the Chancery Court for Perry County wherein cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. The trial court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact such that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on its counter-claim against Plaintiff finding that Daniel's Landing Road is a public road. The standard of review is clear, we review the decision of the trial court de novo with no presumption of correctness on appeal. The issue on appeal is whether Daniel's Landing Road is a public road and, if so, whether it remains a public road absent abandonment or closing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 54-10-201, et seq. We conclude that Daniel's Landing Road is a public road and affirm the trial court.
Patient with a history of papillary carcinoma underwent a fine needle aspiration which confirmed a diagnosis of cancer in her neck region. Patient underwent surgery to remove the cancerous tissue which resulted in hypoparathyroidism and injury to her recurrent laryngeal nerve, risks commonly associated with the procedure. Patient brought informed consent action against doctor, claiming that, had the inherent risks of the procedure been disclosed to her, she would have sought a second opinion and had the procedure performed at a different facility by a different surgeon. The doctor moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Finding there are no material, disputed facts remaining, we reverse and remand.
This case seeks declaratory judgment as to whether or not the defendant, Nicholas Reaves Ramsey, was a "covered person" within the omnibus clause of an automobile liability insurance policy. In a non-jury trial the trial judge held that Defendant was not covered under the omnibus clause. We affirm.
Freddie Dean Smith and Anita Ann Smith (“Plaintiffs”) filed a medical malpractice action against Tony O. Haley, M.D. (“Defendant”). Defendant moved for summary judgment with his affidavit filed in support thereof. The motion was granted after Plaintiffs failed to file timely any competent medical proof to defeat the motion. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reconsider along with the affidavit of Joseph Bussey, M.D. The Trial Court granted the motion and reinstated the case to the active docket. Dr. Bussey later refused to give his deposition because he was not comfortable giving a deposition after reviewing the medical records and because he did not believe the case was going to “go this far” when he provided the affidavit. Defendant moved to strike the affidavit of Dr. Bussey and requested the Trial Court to reinstate its previous dismissal. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion. Seeking additional time to locate another medical expert, Plaintiffs then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04, Tenn. R. Civ. P., and for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rules 60.02(1) and 60.02(5), Tenn. R. Civ. P. The Trial Court denied this motion, and Plaintiffs appeal this denial. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal As Of Right; Judgment of the Law Court Affirmed; and Case Remanded.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Elizabeth Doramus, et al vs. Rogers Group, Inc. and T.W. Comer M1998-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves an intrafamily dispute over the use of a 498 acre farm. The conflict's seeds were sown nearly fifty years ago when the now-deceased owners conveyed the farm to a corporation and entered into a long-term lease which created successive leasehold tenancies for life for them, followed by their son, T. W. Comer. T. W. Comer's heirs at law were given the option to choose to become tenants upon his death. Years later, after T. W. Comer had become the tenant, he and Rogers Group, Inc., a mining company which had purchased the remainder interest in the farm, entered into an agreement involving the removal of limestone from the property. Mr. Comer's daughters and his granddaughters responded by commencing this action, seeking to prevent any mining on the property. After the daughters voluntarily dropped their claims, the trial court dismissed the complaint, and the granddaughters appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling because we find that the granddaughters' interest is not sufficient to warrant an injunction against the lessor and the current lessee.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mary Jarmakowicz, et al vs. Billy Suddarth, et al M1998-00920-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall
This appeal arises out of a dispute over the purchase of Nationwide Travel Services, LLC. The jury found that the Sellers were still the owners of the agency and found for Buyers on the Sellers' claim for breach of contract. The jury found for Buyers on their claims of fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process and awarded compensatory damages. At the close of the proof, the trial court granted Sellers' motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. Later, the court denied Buyers' Motion for discretionary costs, and this appeal resulted. Buyers take issue with whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict on punitive damages and whether the Court abused its discretion by denying discretionary costs. Sellers argue there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's award on fraud and deceit, conversion and abuse of process. They also argue that the jury should have found for Sellers on the breach of contract claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the jury's award of compensatory damages and hold there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination of fraud and deceit, conversion, abuse of process and no breach of contract. Further, we affirm the trial Court's directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. However, we vacate the denial of Buyers' motion for discretionary costs and remand for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton, E2000-02549-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
