Robert H. Waldschmidt v. Reassure America Life Insurance Co., et al.
This appeal involves a question of law concerning the interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-2303 (2008) certified by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The bankruptcy court has asked this Court to determine whether the issuer of a deceased debtor’s life insurance policy was exempted under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-2303(d) from the statutory notice requirements for lapsed life insurance policies because the premium payments on the policy were being paid monthly. We hold that the plain language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-2303(d) exempts from the notice requirements in Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-2303(a) “any policies upon which premiums are payable monthly or at more frequent intervals.” Based on the undisputed facts, the premiums for the debtor’s life insurance policy were “payable monthly.” Therefore, the issuer of the policy was not required to give either the debtor or the trustee the notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-2303(a), and the policy lapsed in accordance with its terms before the debtor’s death. |
Supreme Court | ||
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. Southern Railway Company, et.al. - Concurring
I concur with the result reached by the Court. Based on the current appellate record, there exists a genuine factual issue regarding whether Conductor Danny Martin sounded the train’s whistle as the train approached the crossing as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-12-108(2) (2004). |
Anderson | Supreme Court | |
Tennie Martin, et.al. v. Southern Railway Company, et.al.
This case comes before us on an appeal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Because the plaintiffs have established the existence of several genuine issues of material fact, we conclude that summary judgment is inappropriate. We further conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a defendant’s subsequent remedial measures. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edgar White, Jr.
We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the identification of marijuana, an essential element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that the substance was marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Devin Banks
This appeal involves a defendant who shot two persons during a robbery at the home of one of the |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Michael Hannah, et.al. v. Alltel Publishing Co.
The Court’s decision in this case alters summary judgment practice in Tennessee by dramatically changing the moving party’s burden of production. From henceforth, parties seeking a summary judgment in Tennessee’s courts will no longer be able to shift the burden of production to the nonmoving party by demonstrating that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of a claim or defense asserted by the nonmoving party. This change in direction goes far beyond what is required to determine whether the summary judgment in this case was or was not appropriate. The Court’s decision will undermine, rather than enhance, the utility of summary judgment proceedings as opportunities to weed out frivolous lawsuits and to avoid the time and expense of unnecessary trials. |
Monroe | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Jonathan Harrison
This appeal involves the procedure for discovering the records of a clinical psychologist whom the defendant intends to call as an expert witness at a pretrial competency hearing in a criminal case. After the defendant filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Chester County requesting to be declared incompetent to stand trial, the State obtained a judicial subpoena under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17- 123 (2006) directing the defendant’s psychologist to produce “[a]ny and all records” related to his examination of the defendant. The trial court declined to quash the subpoena but granted the defendant an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The intermediate appellate court held that the trial court erred by issuing a subpoena under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-123 but, characterizing the competency hearing as “in the nature of a civil proceeding,” ordered the production of the materials sought in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.02. State v. Harrison, No. W2006-00483-CCA-R9-CD, 2007 WL 906730, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2007). We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to address the application of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.02 to pretrial competency hearings in criminal cases. We concur with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusions that the trial court erred by granting the judicial subpoena and that the State is entitled to discover the report of the expert testifying for the defendant in the competency hearing. However, we have also determined that Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.02 does not apply to pretrial competency hearings in criminal cases. Exercising our inherent supervisory authority over Tennessee’s judicial system, we adopt a temporary procedure for the disclosure and use of evidence relating to competency to stand trial in criminal cases. |
Chester | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs Phedrek Davis
We granted the Defendant’s request for permission to appeal to address the propriety of jury instructions requiring the jury to reach a unanimous decision to acquit of a greater offense before considering a lesser-included offense. We hold that such jury instructions are proper and do not violate the Defendant’s right to trial by jury. We also hold that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate the Defendant’s federal Sixth Amendment rights. While the Defendant has raised several other issues, we have determined that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that they do not entitle the Defendant to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs Phedrek Davis - Concurring
The specific question presented for our review is whether the acquittal-first jury instruction, in the context of the right to a complete charge on the count in the indictment as well as any and all lesser-included offenses supported by the evidence at trial, either is violative of our constitution or should be overruled for policy reasons. See State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001); State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). The majority concludes that the instruction meets constitutional muster, and I am inclined to concur with that assessment; however, an acquittal-first instruction in Tennessee largely qualifies as legal fiction because the trial judge is required under our constitution to instruct on the primary charge and the full panoply of lesser-included offenses in advance of deliberations. That is, the jury, by being provided with the entirety of the instructions as appropriate, necessarily considers any lesser-included offenses before convening for deliberations. It is my belief, therefore, that as a matter of practicality and for sound policy reasons, Tennessee should retreat from acquittal-first and formally adopt an alternative instruction – one which fits within the framework of a criminal jury trial and which best conforms to specific provisions within our state constitution. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Board of Professional Responsibility v. Edward I. Curry, III
This appeal involves a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer that arises from a fee dispute. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility suspended the lawyer for six months after determining (1) that he engaged in unprofessional conduct by placing an unauthorized endorsement on a settlement check and (2) that he had converted funds he had withdrawn from his trust account to pay his fee because he failed to return the funds after his client disputed his fee. The lawyer appealed to the Chancery Court for Shelby County. Based on the record of the proceeding before the hearing panel and additional evidence, the reviewing court reduced the six-month suspension to a public censure after determining that the hearing panel erred by concluding that the lawyer had converted his client’s funds and that he was obligated to return the funds after his client disputed his fee. Disciplinary Counsel appealed to this Court. We hold that a public censure is an appropriate remedy in this case. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Dennis Pylant v. State of Tennessee
We accepted this appeal to determine whether the post-conviction court erred in denying Petitioner Dennis Pylant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. In 2001, a jury convicted Petitioner of the first degree felony murder of two-year-old S.J.D. in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and this Court denied Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. At the hearing, Petitioner adduced testimony about self-incriminating statements made by the victim’s mother but which trial counsel did not present to the jury at trial. The post-conviction court struck this testimony as hearsay and denied Petitioner’s claim for relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court. We hold that the post-conviction court erred in striking the proffered testimony as hearsay. We also hold that, because the post-conviction court made no credibility findings with respect to the proffered witnesses, we are unable to reach the merits of Petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment in this case and remand for a new post-conviction hearing. |
Cheatham | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Tyson Lee Day - Dissenting
The State of Tennessee filed its Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application in this case to determine whether Tennessee recognizes the “community caretaking” exception to the requirement that police officers have at least reasonable suspicion when they make a traffic stop. I agree with the Court’s conclusion that we cannot address this question because it is beyond the scope of the legal issue certified to this Court in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2). Rather than dismissing the appeal as being improvidently granted, the Court has decided to determine whether, under the essentially undisputed facts, Officer Jeff Tarkington acted reasonably when he stopped Tyson Lee Day’s automobile on May 16, 2004. The Court has decided that Officer Tarkington did not act reasonably. I cannot concur with this conclusion. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Tyson Lee Day
After unsuccessfully moving to suppress evidence resulting from the traffic stop that led to his arrest, the defendant, Tyson Lee Day, pleaded guilty to third offense driving under the influence and driving on a revoked license. The plea agreement provided for reservation of a certified question of law regarding whether the traffic stop was based on reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that at the time the officer initiated the traffic stop, he lacked reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court and, because the question was dispositive, dismissed the case. We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider the question of whether the community caretaking rationale for traffic stops justified the stop in this case. After carefully examining the certified question, however, we conclude that the community caretaking issue was not included within the scope of the question reserved for review. Accordingly, our review extends solely to the issue preserved, i.e., whether the traffic stop was based on reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed. We conclude that the facts do not support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
Michael Dwayne Edwards v. State of Tennessee, Wayne Brandon, Warden - Dissenting
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief. Although the majority has performed an admirable analysis of the present cases on the subject, I am of the opinion that the various principles derived from these opinions are in conflict and, absent a reconciliation, the Petitioner is entitled to relief. Because the record of the proceedings demonstrates that after the jury verdict, the trial court directly contravened statute by imposing a Range III, persistent offender sentence, I would grant habeas corpus relief and remand to the sentencing court for the imposition of a Range II sentence. |
Hickman | Supreme Court | |
Michael Dwayne Edwards v. State of Tennessee, Wayne Brandon, Warden
We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding this habeas corpus case to the trial court for a hearing on Michael Dwayne Edward’s claim that his sentence is illegal. After careful consideration we conclude that, even assuming the trial court erroneously classified Edwards as a persistent offender for sentencing, this non-jurisdictional error renders the judgment voidable, not void, and does not entitle Edwards to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing the habeas corpus petition. |
Hickman | Supreme Court | |
Diane Downs, individually and as natural parent of Ryan Cody Downs v. Mark Bush, et. al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief. Although the majority has performed an admirable analysis of the present cases on the subject, I am of the opinion that the various principles derived from these opinions are in conflict and, absent a reconciliation, the Petitioner is entitled to relief. Because the record of the proceedings demonstrates that after the jury verdict, the trial court directly contravened statute by imposing a Range III, persistent offender sentence, I would grant habeas corpus relief and remand to the sentencing court for the imposition of a Range II sentence. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Diane Downs, individually and as natural parent of Ryan Cody Downs v. Mark Bush, et al
We granted the plaintiff’s application for permission to appeal in this wrongful death case to determine whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to each of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Although the parties have raised several issues in this appeal, the central issue is the nature of the legal duty, if any, owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent. The decedent was socializing and consuming alcohol with the defendants. While riding in a four-door pick-up truck with the defendants, he became ill. The defendants stopped the truck on the side of an interstate highway so the decedent could vomit. After resuming the trip, the decedent rode in the bed of the truck and, for reasons unknown, exited it. After exiting the truck, he was struck by two vehicles and subsequently died. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants placed the decedent in the bed of the truck. Similarly, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the decedent was helpless and whether the defendants took charge of him. Lastly, we hold that none of the defendants stood in any special relationship with the plaintiff’s decedent and consequently they did not assume any affirmative duty to aid or protect him. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Colonial Pipeline Company v. John G. Morgan et al.
Colonial Pipeline Company filed suit for declaratory judgment, challenging the constitutionality of specified portions of the state tax code and seeking an injunction as to the enforcement of those provisions. The Chancery Court dismissed the action, holding that the company had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We granted an application for permission to appeal and, after consideration of the issues, hold that (1) a party making a constitutional challenge to the facial validity of a statute need not exhaust its administrative remedies, and that (2) the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a suit for declaratory judgment asking state officers to be enjoined from enforcing such a statute so long as the action does not seek money damages. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Doug Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I fully concur in the majority’s conclusion that Alcoa owed a duty to Ms. Satterfield to take reasonable steps to prevent her from suffering harm as a result of the risks created by the operation of Alcoa’s facility. I write separately to express my belief that any discussion of foreseeability in the context of duty encroaches upon the role of the finder of fact. In doing so, I will explain the considerations that I believe are relevant to a duty analysis. This Court has previously stated that the existence of a duty depends upon the presence |
Blount | Supreme Court | |
Doug Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company, et al.
This appeal involves the efforts of the estate of a twenty-five-year-old woman who contracted mesothelioma to recover damages for her death. While she was alive, the woman filed a negligence action against her father’s employer, alleging that the employer had negligently permitted her father to wear his asbestos-contaminated work clothes home from work, thereby regularly and repeatedly exposing her to asbestos fibers over an extended period of time. After the woman died, the Circuit Court for Blount County permitted her father to be substituted as the personal representative of her estate. The employer moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the narrow ground that it owed no duty to its employee’s daughter. The trial court granted the motion. The deceased woman’s father appealed the dismissal of his daughter’s wrongful death claim. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., No. E2006-00903-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1159416 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2007). We granted the employer’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the deceased woman’s omplaint can withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We have determined that it does because, under the facts alleged in the complaint, the employer owed a duty to those who regularly and for extended periods of time came into close contact with the asbestos contaminated work clothes of its employees to prevent them from being exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed; Case Remanded |
Blount | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Lee Meeks, et al.
This appeal involves the warrantless search of a motel room containing an actively operating methamphetamine laboratory. After the occupants of the room were indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine and for possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, they filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Coffee County seeking to suppress the evidence found in the motel room. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment. The State appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence and vacated the order dismissing the indictment. State v. Meeks, No. M2006-01385- CCA-R3-CO, 2007 WL 1987797 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 10, 2007). We granted the defendants’ Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal to address more fully the principles applicable to warrantless searches of actively operating methamphetamine laboratories when the State asserts that the officers were acting to avert a serious and immediate risk of injury to themselves or others. Like the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have determined that the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress and by dismissing the indictment. |
Coffee | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Marco M. Northern Concurring/Dissenting
I fully concur with all portions of the majority opinion except Part III(C), which discusses the defendant’s right against self-incrimination under the Tennessee Constitution. I would decline to address that issue as it is not presented by this case. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Marco M. Northern
We granted this appeal to consider whether the courts below correctly held that Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), does not bar the introduction into evidence of the defendant’s Mirandized2 videotaped confession which occurred after the defendant made an incriminating admission during a prior unwarned custodial interrogation. This Court has not previously interpreted and applied Seibert. After carefully considering the plurality opinion, the concurring opinions, and the dissenting opinions in Seibert, we conclude that the courts below correctly held that Seibert does not bar admission of the defendant’s videotaped confession. We further hold that this Court’s decision in State v. Smith, 834 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. 1992), interpreting the right against self-incrimination provided by article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, does not bar admission of the defendant’s videotaped confession. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the defendant’s conviction of second degree murder but remanded for resentencing. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Ariel Ben Sherman
A Loudon County grand jury indicted the defendant, Ariel Ben Sherman, and co-defendant, Jacqueline Crank, for child neglect. The trial court dismissed the indictment against Sherman. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded. We granted Sherman’s application for permission to appeal to consider the issues presented for review, and hold as follows: (1) When deciding a motion to dismiss an indictment, a trial court may consider undisputed facts that are clearly and unequivocally agreed upon by the parties; (2) a person standing in loco parentis to a child may have a legal duty of care, the breach of which may result in criminal culpability; and (3) the State is not bound at the outset of a trial by the legal theories espoused in its bill of particulars. Because the trial court erroneously dismissed the indictment, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals, reinstate the indictment against Sherman, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Loudon | Supreme Court | |
Marc Eskin et al. v. Alice B. Bartee, et al.
This appeal involves claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress made by two family members of a child who was seriously injured in an automobile accident. In their complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, the injured child’s mother and brother alleged that they had sustained severe emotional injuries after they observed him lying on the pavement in a pool of blood. The injured child’s parents served a copy of the complaint on their automobile insurance company because the driver of the automobile that struck their son lacked adequate insurance. The insurance company moved for a partial summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because neither the injured child’s mother nor his brother had seen or heard the injury-producing accident. The trial court granted the insurance company’s motion, and the injured child’s mother and brother appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. We granted the insurance company’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly permitted these negligent infliction of emotional distress claims to proceed. We have determined that persons who observe an injured family member shortly after an injury-producing accident may pursue a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. |
Shelby | Supreme Court |
