Rouse Construction Co. vs. Interstate Steel Corp. E2001-00242-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This is a case wherein the Plaintiff/Appellant, Rouse Construction Company, seeks damages for breach of contract from the Defendant/Appellee, Interstate Steel Corporation. The Chancellor found that there was no meeting of minds between the parties as to essential contract terms and, therefore, ordered that Rouse's claim be denied. The Chancellor further determined that Interstate should be allowed a judgment in the amount of $19,090.00 for materials and plans delivered to Rouse. We concur in the determination of the Chancellor and affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Carl O. Koella, Jr. vs. Fred McHargue, et ux E2001-00544-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
Defendants have right of first refusal on tract of real property. The Trial Court held that the giving of a quitclaim deed did not trigger the right of first refusal. Defendants appealed, we affirm.
Jeffrey Miller appeals the Meigs County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petitions for writ of error coram nobis and writ of habeas corpus. Both petitions seek redress for Miller's grievance that he has been required to serve felony sentences in the Department of Correction, although his plea agreements designated the location of confinement to be the Meigs County Jail. Because neither coram nobis nor habeas corpus relief is available to address a concern of this nature and because the petitioner's claims are factually unfounded, we affirm.
Meigs
Court of Criminal Appeals
CH-00-1207-2 CH-00-1207-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Denise Frazier vs. Robert Frazier E2000-02929-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Appellant ask the Court to void portions of the marital settlement agreement incorporated in the parties' Divorce Decree in the State of Illinois. The Trial Court refused and granted appellee summary judgment. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
New Covenant Baptist Church vs. Panther Sark E2000-02930-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this suit New Covenant Baptist Church seeks a declaration that certain restrictions applicable to Technology Park West subdivision do not preclude New Covenant from using one of the lots for driveway purposes to other unrestricted property owned by New Covenant outside the subdivision. Panther Sark, a partnership, and certain other owners of lots in the subdivision were named as Defendants and they filed a counter-complaint seeking a declaration to the contrary. The Trial Court found in favor of New Covenant. We reverse and hold in favor of the partnership and other owners of lots in the subdivision.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Lonnie Wilder vs. Leslie Wilder E2000-03184-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John D. Mcafee
In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded husband attorney's fees against wife. On appeal, we reverse.
The Sullivan County grand jury issued presentments against the defendant on one count of operating a motor vehicle without a face shield; two counts of speeding; three counts of driving under the influence; three counts of driving on a revoked license; two counts of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated; one count of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving under the influence; one count of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense; and one count of driving under the influence, fourth offense. The charges resulted from three separate cases. The defendant pled to all of the crimes in two different plea hearings and the defendant was sentenced as a career offender to a total of eighteen years, with a minimum jail time of 585 days, and with his last six years to be served on probation. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender and did not apprise the defendant of the possibility that he could be sentenced as a persistent offender, as opposed to a career offender. He moved to withdraw his guilty pleas on this ground. The trial court denied his motion, and he appeals the denial. Furthermore, the defendant waived his right to request probation or alternative sentencing in one case, and the state agreed to allow the defendant to serve probation in one case. In the third case, the defendant requested probation or alternative sentencing. The trial court denied his request, citing his extensive criminal history in support of its denial. The defendant also appeals this denial. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the lower court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and its denial of probation or alternative sentencing.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
David Miller vs. State E1998-00247-SC-R11-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
We granted petitioner, David Earl Miller's application for permission to appeal to determine whether this Court's decision in State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1992) created a new state constitutional rule regarding the elements of deliberation and premeditation. Petitioner claims that Brown created a new state constitutional rule and that the jury instructions given at his initial trial violated this rule by relieving the prosecution of its burden to prove the elements of premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitioner argues that his conviction of first-degree murder was not supported by sufficient proof. After due consideration, we conclude that Brown did not announce a new state constitutional rule, did not implicate any constitutional right, is not retroactive, and may not serve as the basis for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we conclude that the petitioner's complaint about the jury instructions given at his initial trial has been waived because it was not raised on direct appeal and that his complaint about the sufficiency of the evidence to support premeditation and deliberation was previously determined by this Court on direct appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
The appellant, Marcia Lynn Williams, entered a best interest guilty plea in the Circuit Court of Marshall County to one count of obtaining drugs by false pretense, a class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying the appellant a sentence in the community corrections program. After a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
Southwest Williamson County Community Assoc. et al vs. Bruce Saltsman M2001-00943-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Russ Heldman
Being dissatisfied with the State's concept of, and planning for, the extension of State Route 840 through southwest Williamson County, three residents in the County, two nonprofit corporations, and a partnership that owns property in the County, sued J. Bruce Saltsman, Sr. ("the Commissioner"), in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation ("TDOT"). Following a bench trial, the court below entered a final judgment including (1) a writ of mandamus ordering the Commissioner to perform a number of "duties" in connection with Route 840; and (2) a permanent injunction enjoining him from moving forward with the planning and construction of Route 840 through Williamson County until he complies with the trial court's order. The Commissioner appeals. In addition to other bases for reversal, he asserts that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of this controversy. We agree with the appellant that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below in its entirety and dismiss the petition.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Eddie McNabb M2000-01490-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham
The defendant appeals from his maximum sentence of six (6) years for voluntary manslaughter and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we hold that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant to six (6) years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction and correctly ordered the defendant's convictions for voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault be served consecutive to one another. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Robert Blanton, Jr., was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury on June 6, 1995, on one count of sale of marijuana and one count of delivery of marijuana, both Class E felonies. The defendant pled guilty to the indictment, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to probation. An affidavit of violation of probation was filed on April 17, 1996, and amended on September 6, 1996.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
Natalya Mazor vs. Kenneth Isaacman W2000-01485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This is a dental malpractice case. The patient visited the defendant dentist in August 1997 for routine root canal surgery. After the surgery, the patient began experiencing "constant" pain in the tooth in which the root canal was performed. She was told by the defendant dentist that this was pain ordinarily felt after root canal surgery. In February 1999, the patient visited another dentist who discovered that a piece of a drill bit had been left inside patient's tooth during the previous root canal. In December 1999, the patient filed a lawsuit against the defendant dentist for dental malpractice. The defendant dentist filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the patient did not bring the claim within the one year statute of limitations. This motion was granted and the patient now appeals. We reverse, finding that the patient had one year from the time she discovered or should have discovered the foreign object in which to file her lawsuit.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Arthur Anderson vs. Edwin Roberson W2000-01879-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This appeal presents the sole issue of in personam jurisdiction of a nonresident corporation and the nonresident individual owning a majority interest in the corporation by virtue of their activities, as described in the Tennessee Long Arm statute, or alternatively, as co-conspirators with defendants, subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Judy Burroughs vs. Robert Magee W2001-00238-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
This is a personal injury and wrongful death case. The plaintiff and her husband were involved in an automobile accident. The plaintiff sued the driver of the other vehicle for her husband's wrongful death as well as for injuries she sustained in the accident. The plaintiff named the driver's physician as an additional tortfeasor, alleging that the physician negligently prescribed drugs to a known drug addict, negligently prescribed two contraindicated drugs, and negligently failed to warn his patient of the risks of driving while under the influence of the drugs. The trial court granted the physician's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the physician had no duty to unidentifiable third parties such as the plaintiff. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding that the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff and the decedent to warn his patient of the risks of driving while under the influence of the prescribed drugs.
Lauderdale
Court of Appeals
Dorothy Owen vs. George Summers W2001-00727-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This is an action to set aside a warranty deed. Plaintiff-Grantor filed suit on February 11, 1997, to set aside a deed executed July 11, 1989, on the grounds of fraud and mental incompetency. The defendant grantee denied fraud and mental incompetency and affirmatively relied upon the seven-year statute of limitations. Following a jury trial, which ended in a mistrial, the parties stipulated that the case be submitted to the chancellor who conducted the trial for a nonjury determination from the trial transcript and trial exhibits. The chancellor found that the seven-year statute of limitations had been tolled by virtue of the grantor's mental incompetence, the deed was procured by fraud, and that the grantor was mentally incompetent on the date of the execution of the deed. The chancellor rescinded the deed. Defendant-Grantee has appealed. We affirm.
Fayette
Court of Appeals
Michael Cheslock vs. Bd. of Admin., etc . W2001-00179-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
On December 14, 1995, Memphis Police Lieutenant Michael Cheslock appeared before the Pension Board of Memphis, Tennessee, to request a line of duty disability pension as provided by the Memphis Code of Ordinances, Section 25-1(27). Mr. Cheslock had been diagnosed by two psychiatrists as disabled by job related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Pension Board refused the line of disability pension, determining that Mr. Cheslock did not meet the requirements as defined by the code. Mr. Cheslock filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Shelby County. The petition was denied and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Roberts vs. Everhart Steel Const. Co. Inc. E2001-00187-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
In this action for damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligence, a jury awarded damages. On appeal, we conclusively presume the Judgment is correct, because we cannot review all of the evidence heard by the jury.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. vs. SA W. Jeong E2001-00246-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company ("Tennessee Farmers") brought a declaratory judgment action against Sa W. Jeong ("the injured party"); her daughter, Hyunlan Lee; and her son-in-law, Jack Sung K. Lee (the defendants Lee are referred to herein collectively as "the Lees"), asking the trial court to "declare whether or not Tennessee Farmers is obligated to afford liability coverage to [the Lees] in connection with the lawsuit filed against them by [the injured party]." At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial judge ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the word "reside" and its derivatives "resident" and "residing," particularly as the latter two words are used in the policy language excluding coverage of a claim by a "covered person" or one "residing in the same household," are ambiguous, and that the language of the policy should be construed against Tennessee Farmers as the drafter of the policy. The court ordered Tennessee Farmers to provide liability coverage to the Lees with respect to the subject lawsuit. Tennessee Farmers appeals, raising issues as to whether the trial court correctly ruled that the policy is ambiguous, and whether the trial court was correct in finding that the word "resident" was susceptible to a reasonable meaning that would exclude the injured party from the ambit of the subject exclusionary language in the policy. We find that the subject policy provision is not ambiguous; however, we conclude that the injured party was not "residing in [the Lees'] household" as that language has been construed by applicable case law. Accordingly, we affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Phillip Ledford vs. Bradley Memorial Hospital E2001-00291-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
The plaintiffs, Phillip A. Ledford ("Ledford") and his wife, Elizabeth Ledford, filed suit against the defendants, Daniel V. Johnson, M.D., Bradley Memorial Hospital ("the Hospital"), and Southeast Tennessee Orthopedics, Inc. ("Southeast"), alleging medical malpractice arising out of surgery performed by Dr. Johnson on Ledford's broken arm. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Blake Burton, et al vs. Hardwood Pallets, Inc., et al E2001-00547-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
This appeal involves a dispute between the sellers of a business and the bank that financed a portion of the purchase price. The plaintiffs, Blake Burton and Michael Burton, entered into an agreement with the defendant, Hardwood Pallets, Inc., to sell the Burtons' pallet manufacturing business. As partial consideration for the sale, Hardwood Pallets executed an unsecured promissory note to the Burtons in the amount of $1,000,000. Additional consideration for the sale was obtained by way of an $800,000 loan from the defendant, AmSouth Bank, to Hardwood Pallets; as a part of the bank transaction, Hardwood Pallets pledged its assets as collateral. As a condition to the making of the loan, AmSouth required the Burtons to execute a subordination agreement. When Hardwood Pallets defaulted on the bank loan, AmSouth sold the collateral at a private sale. Litigation ensued. In addition to suing Hardwood Pallets and its shareholders, the Burtons sued AmSouth, alleging procurement of breach of contract and civil conspiracy to defraud. AmSouth filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Burtons breached the subordination agreement. It also filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it acted within its rights under the subordination agreement. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of AmSouth pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
2001-00383-COA-R3-CV 2001-00383-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
