SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Josie Gray, Administratrix of the Estate of Peggy M. Bush Deceased, v. Ford Motor Company and Springfield Surgery, P.C. and Sarjeet S. Kumar
01S01-9505-FD-00066
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid

Pursuant to Rule 23, Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court has accepted for decision the following question of law certified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Whether principles of comparative fault should apply in Tennessee medical malpractice actions so as to result in the apportionment of damages between the estate of a decedent who acted negligently in causing an initial injury and physician who negligently treated the decedent for that injury.

Davidson Supreme Court

Joseph Carl Owens v. Truckstops of America, Truckstops of America, Inc. and B.P. America, Inc. v. B Michael Design, Inc. and Vitro Products, Inc.
01S01-9408-CV-00077
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

This interlocutory appeal presents for determination the principles of comparative fault applicable to the assessment of liability among joint tort feasors and the application of those principles to this transitional case, in which the cause of action accrued prior to the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d52 (Tenn. 1992). The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified and the case is remanded to the trial court.

Davidson Supreme Court

03S01-9503-CV-00029
03S01-9503-CV-00029
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

Supreme Court

02S01-9502-CR-00019
02S01-9502-CR-00019
Trial Court Judge: H. T. Lockard

Shelby Supreme Court

State of Tennessee v. Billy D. Frasier - Dissenting
01S01-9503-CC-00036
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

I dissent from the majority's holding that a person arrested for driving under the influence of an intoxicant will be denied the right to consult with counsel prior to submitting to a breath test, regardless of the circumstances, and also from the majority's holidng that the defendant's right against self-incrimination would not be violated by the adminssion of his refusal to submit to the breath test as evidence of intoxication.

 

Putnam Supreme Court

02S01-9406-CV-00032
02S01-9406-CV-00032

Supreme Court

Guy Alexander, Jr., Royce Taylor, and Skyline Apartments Partnership v. Third National Bank
01S01-9411-CV-00147
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground the suit is barred by the three year statute of limitations. This Court finds the essential cause of action alleged is breach of contract rather than injury to property and, therefore, the applicable limitation period is six years rather than three years.

Davidson Supreme Court

03S01-9404-CV-00019
03S01-9404-CV-00019

Supreme Court

01S01-9502-CV-00029
01S01-9502-CV-00029

Supreme Court

01S01-9502-CV-00029
01S01-9502-CV-00029

Supreme Court

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly

Supreme Court

03S01-9410-CH-00091
03S01-9410-CH-00091

Supreme Court

01S01-9502-CC-00028
01S01-9502-CC-00028
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull

Supreme Court

Harold Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry - Concurring
01S01-9502-CH-00027
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

At issue in this appeal by the Board of Dentistry is the validity and constitutionality of a proposed civil penalty against Harold Richardson for practicing dentistry and operating a dental clinic without a license. Also  called into question is the authority of the Davidson County Chancery Court to resolve, on judicial review of an administrative order, constitutional issues that were not addressed in the administrative order. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Chancery Court has jurisdiction to  consider constitutional issues not addressed in the administrative  proceeding. As a result, the Chancery Court's resolution of those issues in the first Chancery Court proceeding from which Richardson did not appeal, bars consideration of those issues. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed, and this matter is remanded to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings.

Davidson Supreme Court

03S01-9412-CH-00121
03S01-9412-CH-00121
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

Campbell Supreme Court

03S01-9502-CV-00012
03S01-9502-CV-00012
Trial Court Judge: Robert M. Summitt

Supreme Court

Norma Sue Harrison v. James Nesbitt Harrison - Concurring
01S01-9412-CV-00l53
Authoring Judge: Justice Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This divorce case presents for review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court, that a one-half undivided interest in a tract of real property is marital property within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4-121(b)(1)(B) (1991). This Court finds that the interest is the husband's separate property, not marital property, thus requiring that the Court of Appeals' decision be reversed.

Rutherford Supreme Court

01S01-9503-PB-00044
01S01-9503-PB-00044
Trial Court Judge: James R. Everett

Supreme Court

03S01-9411-CV-00110
03S01-9411-CV-00110
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

Supreme Court

03S01-9412-CR-00119
03S01-9412-CR-00119

Supreme Court

03A01-9401-CV-00032
03A01-9401-CV-00032

Supreme Court

03S01-9502-CV-00016
03S01-9502-CV-00016

Supreme Court

03S01-9410-CR-00094
03S01-9410-CR-00094
Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury

Supreme Court

03S01-9410-CR-00094
03S01-9410-CR-00094

Supreme Court

State of Tennessee v. Gregory Adams Valentine
02S01-9410-CC-00070
Authoring Judge: Justice Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

Gregory Adams Valentine was convicted by a jury of unlawful possessoin of a Schedule VI Substance with intent to manufacture, deliever, or sell (a Class E felony) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class A misdemeanor). We granted his application for review pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Crim. P., in order to determine whether his testimony fulfilled the requirements of Rule 41 (g), Tenn.R.Crim.P., thereby preserving his right to challenge, on appeal, the admission of illegally obtain evidence.

 

 

Henry Supreme Court