State of Tennessee v. William Soller
We have before us the defendant's appeal in this case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we granted the application in order to determine whether the trial court had authority, following imposition of an agreed sentence, to grant the defendant judicial diversion. Because judicial diversion was not included in the agreement, we conclude that the trial court lacked authority to alter the plea agreement. Additionally, once the judgments of "guilty" were entered, the trial court was precluded from granting judicial diversion because judicial diversion must be granted, if at all, "without entering a judgment of guilty." Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. David Scarbrough
We granted this interlocutory appeal prior to the defendant's retrial for felony murder to address the following issue: whether the defendant may contest his guilt as to the felony underlying the felony murder charge where the felony conviction for aggravated burglary was affirmed on direct appeal but the felony murder conviction was reversed. The trial court found that the defendant was prohibited from challenging his guilt as to the underlying felony of aggravated burglary because that conviction was final. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded, however, that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not prevent the defendant from contesting his guilt as to the underlying felony of aggravated burglary during the retrial for the charge of felony murder. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the use of collateral estoppel by the prosecution against the defendant to establish an essential element of the charged offense violates the right to trial by jury under article I, section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution. We further conclude, however, that the prosecution is permitted to introduce evidence of the prior conviction of aggravated burglary if the trial court determines that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment, and we remand to the trial court to hold the retrial consistent with the principles in this opinion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Eric Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.
The dispute in this case arises out of an employment contract which provides severance pay for an employee who is terminated for reasons “other than gross misconduct, fraud, embezzlement, theft or voluntary termination.” The defendant employer ceased providing severance pay to the employee after the employer discovered that the employee had engaged in gross misconduct while still employed by the company. The employee sued for breach of contract, seeking the severance pay due under the contract; the employer responded that had it known previously of the gross misconduct, it would have fired the employee, thus absolving it of any duty to provide severance pay. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employee, after concluding that the employee had been involuntarily terminated, thus triggering the severance pay provision, and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have fired the employee had it known of the gross misconduct. The employee was awarded $795,037.35, less thirty days severance pay already paid, plus prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence in order to avoid liability in a breach of contract action, and because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee would have been fired had the employer discovered the gross misconduct, we remand the case for trial. On the remaining issues raised by the employer, we affirm the Court of Appeals: the employee did not voluntarily resign from his position but was involuntarily terminated; the payment schedule found in the “Employment Protection Plan” regarding severance pay was incorporated into the employment contract; and the severance pay provisions did not constitute an illegal penalty. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Saylor v. Lakeway Trucking, Inc.
In this workers' compensation case, the employee sought benefits due to mental injuries that allegedly arose out of his contact with hazardous material in the course of his employment. We conclude that the record and the applicable law support the trial court's determination that the employee's mental injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment and that the employee is 100% permanently disabled with respect to his mental faculties. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
Charles Brown, et al. v. Crown Equipment Corporation
We granted appeal in this products liability action to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding as unreliable the testimony of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, a mechanical engineer and a biomechanical engineer, and thereafter granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. We hold that the trial court erred in applying the nonexclusive list of reliability factors set out in McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997). These factors are not mandated in every case in which expert evidence is offered and should not be applied unless the factor or factors provide a reasonable measure of the expert’s methodology. We further conclude that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Phyllis A. Young v. Taylor-White, LLC
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding benefits to an employee injured while attending an employer-sponsored company picnic. After reviewing the evidence and applicable authority, we conclude that the employee's injury did not occur in the course of her employment and therefore is not compensable under the workers' compensation law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment. |
Cocke | Supreme Court | |
Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. Phil Bredesen, et al.
We granted review to address several issues regarding the Tennessee Department of Correction's protocol for executing inmates who have been sentenced to death by lethal injection. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the lethal injection protocol in Tennessee, which includes intravenous injections of sodium Pentothal, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, (1) does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution, (2) does not violate due process provisions under the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, (3) does not deny access to the courts in violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, (4) does not violate the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, (5) does not violate the Nonlivestock Animal Humane Death Act, (6) does not violate provisions governing the practice of medicine and provision of healthcare services, and (7) does not violate the Drug Control Act or Pharmacy Practice Act. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Marie B. Jennings v. Sewell-Allen Piggly Wiggly, et al.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant in this premises liability action in which the plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a substance located in the defendant’s supermarket. The plaintiff appealed. Because the appellate record in this case is inadequate to determine the basis for the appellee’s motion or the trial court’s judgment, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the trial court's grant of summary judgment, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Angela Kamille Draper v. Larry H. Westerfield, et al.
In this appeal, we must determine: (1) whether the defendant, a doctor, is immune from liability pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-410(a) (1996) in connection with his review of a child abuse victim's medical records as requested by authorities investigating allegations of child abuse; (2) whether the defendant has a common law duty to report suspected child abuse; and (3) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-401, et. seq. (1996) provides a private right of action for failure to report suspected child abuse. We conclude that immunity under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-410(a) is afforded only to those who actually report harm. Because the determination of whether the defendant reported harm involves a genuine issue of material fact, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue. We further conclude that by reviewing the victim's medical records, the defendant undertook a duty to use reasonable care in reviewing the records and reporting his findings and conclusions to the investigators. Finally, we hold that because the plaintiff did not assert a private right of action pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-401, et. seq. in her complaint, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
In Re C.K.G., C.A.G., & C.L.G. - Dissenting
|
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
In Re C.K.G., C.A.G., & C.L.G.
This controversy involves a maternity dispute. An unmarried, heterosexual couple had three children by obtaining eggs donated from an anonymous third-party female, fertilizing the eggs in vitro with the man’s sperm, and implanting the fertilized eggs in the woman’s uterus. The couple intended to rear the children together as father and mother. When the couple’s relationship deteriorated, the woman filed a parentage action seeking custody and child support. In response, the man claimed that the woman had no standing as a parent because, lacking genetic connection to the children, she failed to qualify as a parent under Tennessee’s parentage statutes. On this basis, the man sought sole and exclusive custody. Employing a broadly-framed test that looks to the parties’ pre-conception intent to determine maternity, both the juvenile court and the Court of Appeals held that the woman was the children’s legal mother. Alternatively, the Court of Appeals held that the man, based on his representations and conduct which induced detrimental reliance by the woman, is estopped to deny the woman’s status as mother. We vacate the adoption of the intent test by the court below and also vacate the holding of the Court of Appeals that the man is estopped to deny the woman’s maternal status. However, we affirm on separate grounds the holding of the courts below that the woman is the children’s legal mother with all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. Our holding in this regard is based on the following factors: (1) prior to the children’s birth, both the woman as gestator and the man as the genetic father voluntarily demonstrated the bona fide intent that the woman would be the children’s legal mother and agreed that she would accept the legal responsibility as well as the legal rights of parenthood; (2) the woman became pregnant, carried to term, and gave birth to the children as her own; and (3) this case does not involve a controversy between a gestator and a female genetic progenitor where the genetic and gestative roles have been separated and distributed among two women, nor does this case involve a controversy between a traditional or gestational surrogate and a genetically-unrelated intended mother. Our holding today is tailored narrowly to the specific controversy now before us. Having concluded that the woman is the children’s legal mother, we also affirm in full the judgments of the juvenile court and Court of Appeals concerning comparative fitness, custody, child support, and visitation |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. David Kyle Gilley
We granted review of this interlocutory appeal to address the admissibility of prior acts of physical abuse committed by the defendant against the victim and others under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The trial court ruled prior to trial that the State's evidence of the defendant's prior acts was admissible in part and inadmissible in part. After granting an interlocutory appeal as requested by both the defendant and the State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that prior acts of physical abuse committed by a defendant against a victim are per se admissible at trial and that there is no longer a requirement for such a prior act to be relevant to a contested issue. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we hold (1) that the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting interlocutory review of the trial court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the evidence under Rule 404(b), and (2) that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that prior acts of physical abuse committed by a defendant against a victim are per se admissible at trial. As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Supreme Court | |
Janice W. Purkey, et al. v. American Home Assurance d/b/a AIG Insurance, et al.
We accepted three questions certified to this Court from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning whether provisions in automobile insurance liability policies that exclude coverage for bodily injury to household or family members of the insured are void as against Tennessee law or public policy. We conclude that such provisions are valid. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Jackson
We granted the State’s application to appeal in this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 to determine, in light of the 1989 Revision of the Criminal Code, whether the longhonored rule that a homicide is presumptively second degree murder should be abandoned. Because our current statutory scheme requires that each element of the charged offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we hold that the second degree murder presumption is now obsolete. Additionally, we have addressed the sufficiency of the evidence without engaging the presumption, and we conclude that the evidence presented is insufficient to convict the defendant of first degree murder (premeditated) beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, however, sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant knowingly killed the victim and, thereby, committed second degree murder. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Thomas Sallee v. Tyler Barrett
This appeal arises from a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant, a police officer, accidently discharged his gun while standing behind the plaintiff, startling the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the defendant was immune from suit pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-310(b) (2000). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that section 29-20-205(2), which retained immunity for governmental entities for the "infliction of mental anguish" caused by its employee applied to both negligent, as well as intentional infliction of mental anguish. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order granting the motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
Larry E. Parrish, et al. v. Robert S. Marquis, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine whether the dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint because it was untimely and for lack of standing constituted a "favorable termination," which is a required element of a malicious prosecution cause of action. The Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim was based on a favorable termination of the legal malpractice action but granted summary judgment to one defendant after determining there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his involvement in the legal malpractice claim. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the plaintiffs' cause of action for malicious prosecution was not based on a favorable termination because the underlying legal malpractice complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds that did not reflect on the merits. Since both defendants were entitled to summary judgment, the Court of Appeals' judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part for the reasons stated in this opinion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly Jeannine Cox
We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, in order to address a question properly preserved and certified pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2)(i). The question, as certified, is: Whether the consent given to search the defendant's motel room is consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee? Because we hold that during the course of a lawful traffic stop the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of her motel room, we find the trial court was correct in denying the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that search. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
Freeman Industries v. Eastman Chemical Co., et al.
We granted permission to appeal to determine: 1) whether an indirect purchaser may bring an action under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act against defendants involved in an price-fixing scheme; 2) whether the conduct complained of falls within the scope of the act; and 3) whether the trial court erred in declining to grant summary judgment to the defendants as to the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. We conclude that although an indirect purchaser may bring an action under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, the conduct complained of in this case did not substantially affect Tennessee commerce and thus falls outside the scope of the act. We further conclude that to sustain an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff is not required to: 1) establish that the defendants received a direct benefit or 2) exhaust all remedies against the party with whom the plaintiff is in privity if the pursuit of the remedies would be futile. Because the plaintiff failed to provide a factual basis to support its bare allegation that any attempt to exhaust its remedies would have been futile, the trial court erred in failing to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
Wausau Insurance v. Vivian Dorsett
We granted this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding the employee temporary total disability benefits in excess of 400 weeks where the employee had not attained maximum medical improvement within the 400-week period. We hold that the statutory "maximum total benefit" of 400 weeks applies to temporary total disability benefits. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the employer's liability for temporary total disability benefits is statutorily limited to 400 weeks. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Coffee | Supreme Court | |
Raymond Banks v. United Parcel Service
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding benefits to the injured employee for the period prior to the date the employee notified the employer of his gradually-occurring injury. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel held that the trial court correctly determined that the employee had timely notified the employer of his injury, but reversed the trial court's determination that the injury was compensable prior to the date of notification. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel. We hold that the notice was timely, that the employee is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period he was off work following his surgery, and that the trial court correctly determined that the employee sustained a 70% vocational disability, affirming the trial court on the separate grounds set forth herein. |
Moore | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Emma Hawk, a/k/a/ Betty Willis
Relying upon a common law rule, the trial court continued the defendant's trial on the charge of accessory after the fact to first degree murder until after the trial and conviction of the principal offender. The defendant sought interlocutory review of the trial court's order, asserting that her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated by application of the common law rule. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant the defendant's application for an interlocutory appeal, finding no reason to deviate from the general practice of evaluating speedy trial claims on direct appeal. We granted the defendant permission to appeal to consider the following issues of law: (1) whether the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591 ("Reform Act"), abrogated the common law rule that a principal must be tried and convicted before an accessory after the fact may be tried; (2) if not, should this Court judicially abrogate the common law rule; and (3) whether a defendant is entitled to interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying her motion to dismiss the indictment because of an alleged violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We hold that the common law rule has not been abrogated by the Reform Act, and we decline to judicially abrogate it. We also hold that the defendant is not entitled to seek interlocutory review of the trial court's order rejecting her alleged Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation. Applying these holdings, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals insofar as it denied the defendant interlocutory review of her speedy trial claim, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court which continued the defendant's trial on the charge of accessory after the fact until after the trial of the principal offender. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Washington | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. David G. Housler
We granted review to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order supplementing the appellate record in the defendant's case with the transcript of co-defendant Courtney Mathews' trial. We conclude that the trial court properly supplemented the record. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We order supplementation of the appellate record with the Mathews transcript for consideration in the defendant's related Rule 11 appeal pending in this Court. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
In re: Estate of Merle Jeffers McFarland
We granted review in this case to determine the appropriate manner of distributing lapsed residuary gifts in a will. Specifically, we are confronted with a holographic will containing a residuary clause which devised percentages of the testatrix’s estate to certain named beneficiaries. Three of these beneficiaries predeceased the testatrix, causing their gifts to lapse. Because these beneficiaries also died without issue, the Tennessee anti-lapse statute is not applicable.1 Thus, the question presented is whether the lapsed residuary gifts are to be divided among the remaining residuary beneficiaries or pass through intestate succession to the testatrix’s heirs at law. The probate court concluded that the lapsed gifts created a partial intestacy, and the lapsed gifts passed to the heirs at law. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Tenn. Rule App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed. |
Hawkins | Supreme Court | |
In re: Estate of Merle Jeffers McFarland -Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. The question in this case is whether, when a will includes a residuary clause with two or more beneficiaries, a lapsed residuary gift is to be distributed among surviving residuary beneficiaries or among the testator’s intestate heirs. The majority reaffirms Ford v. Ford, 31 Tenn. 431, 435 (1852), which holds that a lapsed residuary gift passes via intestate succession. I would overrule Ford and hold that where the residue of a will is devised to two or more persons and the share of one fails, that share passes to the other residuary devisees in proportion to their residuary interests. See Unif. Probate Code § 2-606(b), 8 U.L.A. 427 (1998); see also Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 5.5 cmt. o (1999).1 Consequently, in this case I would distribute the lapsed residuary gifts proportionally among the surviving residuary beneficiaries of the McFarland will rather than via the laws of intestate succession. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Shirley Hale v. Erwin Ostrow, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I agree with the majority opinion that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, that there are genuine issues of material fact as to cause in fact and proximate or legal cause. I continue, however, to adhere to my previous position that the majority’s analysis blurs the line between duty and legal causation by improperly encouraging “the trial court to usurp the role of the jury in weighing the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct.” Burroughs v. Magee, 118 S.W.3d 323, 339 (Tenn. 2003) (Holder, J., concurring and dissenting).1 |
Shelby | Supreme Court |
