Jackie Cline vs. Emily Plemmons E2002-02584-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
This is a dispute between brother and sister over the handling of the affairs as conservators of their mother. The brother appeals from the Trial Court's rulings as to compensation, attorney's fees and conservatorship. On appeal, we affirm.
McMinn
Court of Appeals
Kenneth Emert vs. City of Knoxville E2003-01081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
The original plaintiff, since deceased, tripped on an uneven brick sidewalk and injured his right knee. He was blind, or nearly so, and used a walking aid. The defendant's negligence is not an issue on appeal. The issue is one of causation in light of the medical proof that the plaintiff suffered knee problems before the accident. The trial judge found that the accident aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing condition and awarded damages of $100,000.00 with fault apportioned 80 percent to the defendant. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Juanita W. Keylon vs. Robert A. Hill E2003-01054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.
The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, based upon the asserted failure of the defendant to countervail the motion, was denied by the trial judge. The plaintiff argues that the established rule that the denial of a motion for summary judgment, followed by a jury trial and verdict, is not reviewable, has no application in this case because there was no verdict. The rule is that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable when the case proceeds to judgment, as distinguished from verdict. The motion of the defendant in this medical malpractice case for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence was granted upon a determination that all of the expert testimony established that the three-hour window to administer a blood clot dissolver had expired before the defendant treated the plaintiff. Whether the particular anticoagulant should have been administered in a timely manner was at the core of the claimed negligence. We find the question of negligence to be within the peculiar province of the jury, and remand the case for a new trial.
Roane
Court of Appeals
Polk Couty Bd of Education vs. Polk County Education Assoc. E2003-01110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
The Trial Court ruled the School Board did not have to negotiate with the Teachers Association regarding a dress code policy adopted by the Board. On appeal, we reverse and remand.
Polk
Court of Appeals
Brian Keith Chapman v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation, W2002-00596-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: D. J. Alissandratos, Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: C, J. Steven Stafford, Chancellor
The claimant in this workers' compensation case has appealed the trial court's decision awarding him permanent partial disability benefits of twenty-five percent to the body as a whole. The trial court excluded the deposition of one of the physicians who examined the claimant but made alternative findings if the deposition were improperly excluded. The panel has concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's exclusion of the deposition evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court. We further find that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court's alternative finding of forty-five percent to the body as a whole. The trial court's judgment is modified accordingly.
Dyer
Workers Compensation Panel
Sun Splash Painting v. Homestead Village M2002-00853-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a challenge to the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees pursuant to the Prompt Pay Act, and to the court's denial of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
W2002-02353-COA-R3-CV W2002-02353-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
The defendant entered pleas of guilt to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, and possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of eight years, two years, and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant was required to serve one year in jail followed by seven years in community corrections. Later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and an eight-year sentence imposed. An appeal resulted in a remand by this court with directions to credit both jail time and the length of service within the program. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in the imposition of the resentence. The judgment is affirmed.
The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.
State of Tennessee v. Darwin Treece W2002-02738-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood
The defendant pled guilty to one count of delivering a Schedule II controlled substance (Hydromorphone). He was sentenced to 50 months to be served with Corrections Management Corporation, a community-based alternative, after service of 180 days in the county jail. The defendant appealed the sentence, contending that it was excessive. We hold that the trial court properly rejected mitigating factor one because drug dealing inherently involves the risk of bodily injury and that the defendant’s prior criminal behavior justified the sentence imposed. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
McNairy
Court of Criminal Appeals
CH-02-0609-1 CH-02-0609-1
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Cordell Taylor vs. Donnie & Vick Williams E2003-00199-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
In this dispute over the boundary line between the parties' property, the Trial Court established the line and declared an easement. Defendants have appealed. We affirm.
Morgan
Court of Appeals
Combustion Federal Credit Union vs. John Farmer E2003-00107-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
A judgment was rendered against Mr. Farmer in 1992. It remained unpaid, and the judgment creditor's petition for revival was granted. Mr. Farmer appeals, claiming that he never signed the note which formed the basis of the 1992 action. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Ronnie Johnson vs. Mark R. White E2002-02815-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
These three cases were consolidated for trial. Each Respondent agreed to an Order of Protection sought by their kinsman, who was married to the daughter of Mark V. White, the sister of Mark R. White and niece of Michael Scott Webb. The throes of the divorce action between the Petitioner and his wife, Jennifer White Johnson, precipitated a purported assault on the Petitioner by the Respondents which resulted in criminal charges in addition to an order of protection. Thereafter, the Petitioner and his wife attended the Fourth Circuit Court for a hearing, and the Respondents upon instructions of their attorney in the criminal case also attended, and followed the Petitioner "about the courthouse" placing him in fear. They were cited for criminal contempt, found guilty, and sentenced to ten days confinement, with five days suspended. Each appeals, complaining that the evidence of criminal contempt is insufficient. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Patricia Lyman v. Lawrence James E2002-02859-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
After over thirty years of marriage, Patricia A. Lyman ("Wife") left Lawrence A. James ("Husband") and moved to the state of Washington and began living with her new boyfriend. After Husband learned of Wife's affair, the parties agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences and entered into a marital dissolution agreement ("MDA"). Both parties signed the MDA before a Notary Public, but neither party was administered an oath prior to his or her signing. The MDA provided that Husband would receive the entire amount of his pension. Over six months after the parties were granted a divorce, Wife filed a new lawsuit claiming she gave up any claim to Husband's pension because of Husband's fraud and/or misrepresentations. Wife also claimed the court which granted the divorce lacked personal jurisdiction to enter the final divorce decree because neither Husband nor Wife were administered oaths prior to signing the MDA, which Wife claimed resulted in the MDA not being properly notarized. The Trial Court concluded the failure of the Notary Publics to administer oaths did not render the MDA invalid. The Trial Court also concluded Wife failed to meet her burden of proving fraud and/or misrepresentations on the part of Husband. Wife appeals, and we affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
James Jackson vs. Jackson, Johnson & Murphey E2002-02476-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
This litigation is between a former shareholder of the defendant accounting corporation. These parties entered into an employment contract together with a deferred compensation agreement. After two years, each party claimed the other was in material breach: the Plaintiff asserted a breach because, inter alia, the Defendant refused to treat him as an employee, while the Defendant asserted a breach because the Plaintiff prepared a number of tax returns [66], inter alia, for clients of the firm without recourse to the firm. The trial court found that no mutual material breaches had occurred, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the balance of his deferred compensation which had been terminated by the Defendant owing to the Plaintiff's alleged breaches. The judgment is modified.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
J.M. Cox, Jr. v. East Tennessee Natural Gas E2002-02946-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
In this declaratory judgment action to declare the rights between the dominant and servient estates relating to an easement, the trial court held that the landowner's proposal to add fill dirt over the pipeline easement did not unreasonably interfere with defendant's rights. Defendant has appealed. We reverse.
The Defendant, Joel Anthony Davenport, pled guilty to multiple counts of passing worthless checks and was sentenced to probation. The Defendant's probation was violated and revoked. Upon revocation, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that he was sentenced to four years of incarceration, plus an additional year for the count which violated his probation, to be served consecutively to a six year sentence in another county. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that his sentence was to total eleven years. The Tennessee Department of Corrections report showed that the Defendant was sentenced to fourteen years, not eleven, and the Defendant filed a motion with the trial court to enter an order correcting the "clerical mistake." The trial court denied that motion and the Defendant appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion, we affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Frankie Maples vs. Frank Maples E2003-00722-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
Husband, for the second time, seeks a reduction in his alimony obligation, claiming that his bona fide retirement coincided with a substantial decrease in income. The trial court modified the obligation by reducing it to $919.50 monthly. Wife receives $752.00 from social security. Her reasonable expenses were found to be $2176.00. Husband appeals, insisting that the reduction is insufficient. Wife presents for review the issue of whether any reduction was justified. We reinstate the initial award, finding that Husband, as in the prior appeal, continued his pattern of conduct in restructuring his assets to award his obligation.
