SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Larry Howard, M.D. vs. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.
E2000-01659-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
In this workers' compensation case, the employee sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling to one of two nursing homes at which he worked as medical director pursuant to his employment contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the employee's injuries did not occur in the course of his employment. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision, held that the injuries were compensable, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits. We disagree with the Panel's recommendation and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Hamilton Supreme Court

Randall Webber, Jr., et al vs. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.
E1999-01909-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Anderson County -The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff ratified an insurance policy that provided uninsured motorist coverage in amounts less than the policy's coverage for bodily injury liability. The plaintiff argued in the trial court that he did not authorize the lesser limits of uninsured motorist coverage contained in the contract and that the court should construe the policy to provide for coverage equivalent to the liability provided for bodily injury. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had ratified, and was bound by, the coverage limits as expressed in the contract. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff intended to ratify the lower uninsured motorist coverage limits. We granted permission to appeal and hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Anderson Supreme Court

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Supreme Court

John Clinard, et al vs. Roger Blackwood, et al
M1998-00555-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Robertson Supreme Court

John Clinard, et al vs. Roger Blackwood, et al
M1998-00555-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Robertson Supreme Court

John Clinard, et al vs. Roger Blackwood, et al
M1998-00555-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Robertson Supreme Court

John David Terry vs. State
M1999-00191-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker

Davidson Supreme Court

Jerry Murray vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
W2000-00137-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
The sole issue presented for review is whether the defendant, at the time of the plaintiff's accident, was the plaintiff's statutory employer as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113, and therefore liable for workers' compensation benefits. The defendant contracted with the plaintiff's employer for the painting of overhead air ducts in its plant. Subsequently, the plaintiff was injured when he fell from one of these ducts. The trial court determined that the degree of control exercised by the defendant established the defendant as a statutory employer pursuant to the Act. The defendant appealed. The appeal was argued before the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e), but was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Panel issuing its decision. On appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, holding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the defendant is a statutory employer and that therefore, the defendant is not liable for compensation benefits.

Obion Supreme Court

Danny House vs. State
M1998-00464-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Davidson Supreme Court

Danny House vs. State
M1998-00464-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Davidson Supreme Court

Andrew Fahrner vs. SW Manufacturing, Inc.
M1999-00021-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull

DeKalb Supreme Court

Andrew Fahrner vs. SW Manufacturing, Inc.
M1999-00021-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull

DeKalb Supreme Court

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Supreme Court

State of Tennessee v. Kai ("Guy") Nielsen and Betty Nielsen
E1998-00525-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arden L. Hill

We granted this appeal to determine whether a superseding indictment issued after the statute of limitations has elapsed must allege that the prosecution was timely commenced within the statutory period. After the trial court refused to dismiss the indictment, the defendants were tried and convicted of theft of property over $10,000. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the superseding indictment, which was issued after the statute of limitations had elapsed, did not have to allege facts showing that the prosecution was timely commenced with a prior presentment.

Washington Supreme Court

State of Tennessee v. Edward Lorenzo Samuels
M1999-01821-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

After revoking the defendant's community corrections sentence, the trial court increased the length of the defendant's sentence from six to eight years and ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to a sentence in an unrelated case. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, we granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of our decision in State v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 941 (Tenn. 1999). The Court of Criminal Appeals again affirmed the trial court's judgment. After considering the record, we conclude that upon revoking the community corrections sentence, the trial court held a proper sentencing hearing and did not err either in increasing the length of the defendant's sentence or in ordering that the sentence be served consecutively. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Davidson Supreme Court

Bobby R. George v. Building Materials Corp. of America, et al.
M1999-00449-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carol L. Soloman

In this workers' compensation case, the trial court awarded Bobby R. George 90% permanent partial disability for loss of hearing in both ears. Mr. George's employer, Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation ("GAF"), filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a statute of limitations defense. The trial court denied the motion. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel ("the Panel") reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the answer and remanded the case for further proceedings on the statute of limitations defense. The Panel also reduced the award to 50% permanent partial disability should the statute of limitations defense be unsuccessful on remand. We disagree with the Panel's recommendation and affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

Davidson Supreme Court

Anthony Keith Eldridge vs. Julia Edity Eldridge
E1999-02583-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Richard E. Ladd

We granted review of this child visitation case to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering unrestricted overnight visitation with the mother. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion and imposed restrictions prohibiting the presence of the mother's lesbian partner during overnight visitation. We hold that the record does not support a finding of an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Sullivan Supreme Court

Cecil v. Crowson, Clerk
M2000-03060-SC-RL-RL

Supreme Court

John David Terry vs. State
M1999-00191-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Davidson Supreme Court

John David Terry vs. State
M1999-00191-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Davidson Supreme Court

Robert Spurlock, et al vs. Sumner County, et al
M1999-01486-SC-R23-CQ
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Echols
This case comes to us on a question of law certified from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The question for our resolution is: "Does a sheriff, when acting in a law enforcement capacity, [act] as a state [official] or [as a] county official under Tennessee law?" We accept certification and answer that a sheriff acts as a county official under Tennessee law.

Sumner Supreme Court

Charlotte Brown, et al vs. Birman Managed Care, Inc., et al
M1999-02551-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her daughter, sued her former husband and his employers for fraud and civil conspiracy to defraud. She alleges that these defendants successfully carried out a plan to reduce the amount of her former husband's child support payments. Part of the plaintiff's conspiracy claim is based on the testimony of her former husband in a child support hearing in which he is alleged to have falsely stated his income. The defendants moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the quality of the plaintiff's evidence and (2) the defense of "testimonial privilege," which grants a witness immunity from subsequent civil liability based on testimony he gave in a judicial proceeding. The trial court granted the defendants' motion. The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Cantrell, reversed, holding that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment and that the former husband's testimony comes within the "larger conspiracy" exception to the testimonial privilege. We affirm both holdings of the Court of Appeals.

Putnam Supreme Court

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Supreme Court

Mcarthur Davis v. Komatsu America Industries
M2000-01373-SC-R-23-CQ

Supreme Court

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Supreme Court