The appellant, Timothy S. Oglesby, pled guilty to the offense of felonious possession of a weapon. He received a two (2)-year sentence. Contemporaneously with the entry of the guilty plea the appellant and the State entered an agreed order purporting to reserve a certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law alleged to be dispositive of the case is stated in the agreed order as “the denial of his suppression motion.” We hold that the absence in the judgment of the certified question of law or of a statement incorporating the agreed order into the judgment compels a dismissal of this appeal. In addition, the failure of the agreed order to set forth the certified question with sufficient specificity compels the dismissal of this appeal even if the agreed order had been incorporated by reference into the judgment.
Coffee
Court of Criminal Appeals
Omawali Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean vs. Greeley Wells E2001-02315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In this suit, wherein Omawali Ashanti Shabazz, a/k/a, Fred Edmond Dean, seeks to acquire certain materials held in the office of the District Attorney General. The Trial Court denied the relief he sought because, under Tenn.R.Crim. P. 16, he was not entitled to the material while a post-conviction proceeding was pending. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Omawali Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean vs. Greeley Wells E2001-02315-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In this suit, wherein Omawali Ashanti Shabazz, a/k/a, Fred Edmond Dean, seeks to acquire certain materials held in the office of the District Attorney General. The Trial Court denied the relief he sought because, under Tenn.R.Crim. P. 16, he was not entitled to the material while a post-conviction proceeding was pending. We affirm.
Sullivan
Court of Appeals
Angela Lem Mons v. P & P Enterpr Ises, Llc M2001-00616-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton, Judge
The employee appeals the finding of the trial court that she failed to carry her burden of proof that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robertson
Workers Compensation Panel
Jarrett W Illiam Utley v. Bridgestone/Firestone M2001-00090-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray, Chancellor
The employee appeals and contends the trial court erred (1) in finding his claim for a work-related repetitive injury was barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) in concluding that his injury on September 2, 1997 did not result in any permanent disability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sumner
Workers Compensation Panel
Marilyn Yount v. Bruce Yount M2001-01335-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
The trial court granted a divorce to the wife, and awarded her alimony in futuro of $2,000 per month. The husband argues on appeal that the wife does not need any alimony, and that he himself does not have the ability to pay the alimony. The proof shows that he does indeed have the ability to pay, but that the wife's needs are more appropriately served by an award of rehabilitative alimony. We modify the alimony award accordingly.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
David Schwab v. David Miller M2001-00932-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: R.E. Lee Davies
The Chancery Court of Williamson County held that in order to claim a major benefit of an employment contract the employee had to be employed when the other contingencies in the contract were met. We affirm the lower court's interpretation.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
ANR Pipeline Co., Colonial Pipeline Co., Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et al. v. TN Board of Equalization M2001-01098-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Pipelines for the transport of petroleum products were installed sub-surface by various companies which acquired easements over affected freeholds. These pipelines were assessed as real estate for purposes of taxation. Petitions for Review were filed by the Pipeline Companies alleging that the pipelines were personal property. The decision of the Board of Equalization is reversed.
The appellant, Gonzalo Moran Garcia, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of possession of one thousand grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, a class A felony. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting at trial the testimony of Daniel A. Rosales, an officer employed by the Houston Police Department in Texas; (3) whether the evidence underlying the appellant’s conviction is sufficient; and (4) whether the trial court erred in rejecting his proposed jury instructions. Following a thorough review f the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.
After careful review of the record, I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than that expressed in the majority opinion with respect to the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his vehicle. I agree with the majority on all other matters raised in this appeal.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Joyce Howell vs. Phillip Howell W2001-01167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Madison
Court of Appeals
Joyce Howell vs. Phillip Howell W2001-01167-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Madison
Court of Appeals
Don Long vs. Ralph & Edna Langley W2001-01490-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This a lawsuit between the two stockholders of Gene Langley Ford, Inc., an automobile dealership. The issues involve the percentage of ownership owned by the two stockholders and whether the defendant paid himself an excessive salary for managing the business. The Chancellor held that the plaintiff owns forty-nine (49%) of the stock and the defendant owns fifty-one percent (51%). He further held that the defendant's salary was not excessive. We reverse the Chancellor's decision regarding the ownership of the stock and hold that each party owns fifty percent (50%). We affirm the Chancellor's decision that the defendant's salary was reasonable.
Gibson
Court of Appeals
Alfred/Florence Garionis vs. Andre Pride & Charles Holland W2001-01682-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
The plaintiffs filed a suit for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Through their attorney, they reached a settlement of their claims. Thereafter, they sought to set aside the settlement upon the grounds that they had not authorized their attorney to accept the defendants' offer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had authorized their attorney to settle the case and entered an order enforcing the settlement. We hold that the findings of the trial court are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and affirm the lower court.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Shelia Bland vs. Jerry Bland W2001-01705-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
Husband appeals from a final decree of divorce as to the amount of alimony awarded and the award of attorney fees. We affirm and modify.
Henderson
Court of Appeals
Eagle Vision vs. Odyssey Medical W2001-01772-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This is an action for misappropriation of trade secrets in which the manufacturer of a surgical product allegedly misappropriated the product design and marketed a competing product after the developer discontinued its relationship with manufacturer. Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of manufacturer on all claims. We reverse and remand.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
State/Mae Clark vs. Charles Clark W2001-01896-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Clayburn L. Peeples
This appeal involves an obligor parent's failure to comply with court ordered child support obligations. The State of Tennessee, on behalf of a custodial parent, sought to reduce arrearage in the obligations to judgment. The State was successful and the custodial parent was awarded $14,000.00 in arrearage. The obligor parent appealed and, for the following reasons, we affirm the lower court's decision.
Haywood
Court of Appeals
Anne Pope v. Leuty & Heath M2001-00736-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
The receivers of a group of insolvent life insurance companies brought a malpractice action against an accounting firm that had performed allegedly negligent audits of the companies. The accounting firm denied any negligence, and filed a third party complaint against its professional liability insurer, requesting payment of benefits under an expired policy. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint, ruling that the insurance policy was a claims-made policy and that the insurer was no longer obligated to its former insured. The court certified its order as final for purposes of appeal. We have concluded that the trial court was correct, and we affirm its order.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
City of Cookeville v. William M. Humphrey M2001-00695-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a declaratory judgment action wherein a private act hospital authority, established pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 7-57-601 to 604, seeks a declaration that it has the authority to enter into an exclusive contract for professional radiology services, thus limiting the use of imaging equipment and hospital support staff situated in the hospital to such exclusive providers of radiology services. Defendants are four competent radiologists, presently on the medical staff of the hospital, who have also established Premier Diagnostic Imaging Center, LLC to provide outpatient radiology services independent of the hospital. The exclusive contract sought by the hospital would effectively "close" use of the hospital imaging facilities and support staff to all radiologists except the providers named in the exclusive contract. The trial court declared that the hospital was authorized to enter into such an exclusive provider contract, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Putnam
Court of Appeals
Alan Miller v. City of Murfreesboro M2001-01478-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
In this retaliatory demotion case, the City of Murfreesboro appeals the action of the trial court in denying a Motion for Summary Judgment as to all issues. We find no material evidence in the record to establish that the articulated reason for the demotion of these three police officers, all of whom are established by the record to be honest and competent officers, is pretextual. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and summary judgment entered for Defendant as to all issues.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Dennis Osagie v. Peakload Temporary Services M2001-00852-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
An employee of a temporary services agency sued the agency for non-payment of wages and for discrimination. The trial court dismissed the claim for non-payment with prejudice, and the claim for discrimination without prejudice. We affirm the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Kevin Sanders v. Jerry Mansfield M2001-01893-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Plaintiffs appeal an injunction preventing them from interfering with county maintenance of a public road running through their property. We affirm the trial court in this matter and uphold the injunction against Plaintiffs.
Lincoln
Court of Appeals
Ingram v. Beazer Homes M2001-01641-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This litigation arises from the 1994 sale of a newly constructed house and lot backing up to a subdivision common area with an existing natural sinkhole, which is utilized for surface water drainage from several nearby lots. During development of the subdivision the defendant filled the area including a portion of the lot purchased by the plaintiffs. In 1997, the plaintiffs became concerned about the ground settling in their back yard and about perceived dangers of the nearby sinkhole. They sued the defendant as subdivision developer, house builder, and seller of the property and sought rescission or alternative relief. The Chancery Court ordered rescission with the plaintiffs recovering the appreciated value at the time of trial and the cost of improvements, plus prejudgment interest on that total, but without any setoff for the rental value during the plaintiffs' occupancy. We reverse and remand due to errors in the trial court's calculation of the amount payable upon rescission and related issues. While we could affirm the rescission, we are reluctant to limit the parties and the trial court to that remedy, since we anticipate additional proof by the parties and a significantly different result upon remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Jennifer Branham vs. Jeffery Branham E2003-01253-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Mother petitioned the Court to relocate to Kentucky with the parties child, which the Trial Court granted. On appeal, we affirm.
Hamblen
Court of Appeals
Charles Crews (Dexter Ridge Shopping Center) vs. Michael Cahhal, et al. W1999-02354-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff developer leased space to a corporation for use as a restaurant. The shareholders of the corporation entered into a separate agreement with the developer to guarantee the lease. The corporation defaulted on the lease. The developer filed unlawful detainer warrants in general sessions court against both the corporation and the shareholder guarantors. Thereafter, the corporation filed for bankruptcy, thus staying the general sessions court proceedings as to the corporation. The general sessions court dismissed the entire action, including the claim against the guarantors, because the bankruptcy stay prevented the developer from recovering possession. This decision was appealed to circuit court. Meanwhile, the developer had filed a second lawsuit for breach of contract against the guarantors. The second lawsuit was consolidated with the appeal of the unlawful detainer action pending in circuit court. After a trial, the circuit court affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful detainer action and dismissed the breach of contract action based on the doctrine of former suit pending. This appeal followed. We reverse and remand, finding, inter alia, that the action in general sessions court against the guarantors was for breach of contract and, therefore, recovery of possession of the premises was not required in order to obtain an award of damages against the guarantors.
