Brian Engebretson v. Allied Waste Industries Of Tennessee, Inc., a/k/a BFI Waste Systems Of North America, Inc., et al.
TThis workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to this panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee appeals the trial court’s finding of no permanent disability as being against the preponderance of the evidence and asserts error in the admission of medical evidence due to leading questions. We find the trial court did not commit harmful error in overruling objections to leading questions propounded to the medical expert. We further find that the finding of no permanent disability is against the preponderance of the evidence and fix the employee’s permanent disability at 30% to the left leg. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Robert Foster v. Morrow Trucking, Inc., et al.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case was previously before the Panel in Foster v. Morrow Trucking, et al, No. W2002-0041-WC-R3-CV (Foster I). In that appeal, the Panel remanded the case to the trial court for specific findings of fact regarding the percentage of disability that would have resulted from employee’s November, 1999 injury without consideration of his pre-existing diabetic neuropathy. Upon remand the trial court fixed the permanent partial disability resulting from the November, 1999 work related injury at 50% to the body as a whole without any consideration of his pre-existing disease. As discussed below, the Panel concludes that the evidence does not preponderate against that finding and, accordingly, affirms the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Mario Pendergrass v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he should have been appointed post-conviction counsel and given an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the petitioner presents a colorable claim for relief under the more lenient standards afforded a pro se petition. Accordingly, we reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand the case to the post-conviction court for the appointment of counsel. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Nicholson
On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. After careful review, we conclude that, under the facts presented, the defendant was seized when the officers instructed the defendant to “hold up,” pursued him on foot, and eventually apprehended him. Moreover, we hold that the detectives lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate the stop. Therefore, we reverse the findings of the trial court, the evidence flowing from the illegal seizure is suppressed, the defendant’s conviction is vacated, and the charges are dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Nicholson - Dissenting
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. In my view, the defendant was not seized when the officer directed him to "hold up." Further, the defendant's flight, coupled with his presence in an area known for drug trafficking, provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain him for further inquiry. That he was not a resident of the housing project, refused to provide his name or identification, and refused to provide the name of the individual he claimed to be visiting established probable cause to arrest him for trespassing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Britton, III
The defendant challenges his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and felony unlawful possession of a weapon. Specifically, he contends that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the element of premeditation; 2) the trial court improperly admitted the statement made by the victim identifying the defendant as the shooter; and 3) the trial court improperly denied his request for judicial use immunity for a prospective defense witness. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Faulkner
The defendant, Robert Faulkner, was convicted of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife, Shirley Faulkner. The jury imposed a sentence of death based upon the aggravating circumstance that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more violent felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On automatic appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(a)(1) (2003), we designated the following issues for oral argument:1 1) whether the trial court improperly excluded testimony at the guilt phase regarding Faulkner’s “diminished capacity”; 2) whether the trial court committed harmful error in its instructions defining “intentionally” and “knowingly”; 3) whether the failure of the verdict form to recite that the jury found the aggravating circumstance “beyond a reasonable doubt” rendered the verdict invalid; and 4) whether the sentence of death is disproportionate or invalid under the mandatory review of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) (2003). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the issue of photographic evidence raised by Faulkner, we find no merit to his arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Faulkner - concurring/dissenting opinion
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Carl Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carl Johnson, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery, and he received a sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without conducting a full evidentiary hearing. The petitioner now appeals the dismissal of his petition. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Allen Newman v. Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Inc.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court’s award of disability benefits based on a percentage of disability to the hand is excessive because there was no evidence of any unusual or extraordinary effect on the hand. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ronnie Hamilton v. American Tissue Incorporated d/b/a American Tissue Mills of Tennessee, LLC., et al.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the plaintiff/employee insists the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of Dr. Jay Segarra, the plaintiff’s medical expert and in making a conditional award of only 10 percent to the body as a whole. The employers contend the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the opinion testimony of Dr. Segarra because Dr. Segarra is not licensed in Tennessee and because the doctor committed a crime by providing medical service to the plaintiff in Tennessee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court committed no reversible error and that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
William David Farrar v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William David Farrar, pled guilty to one count of burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison, to be served consecutively to another sentence in Marshall County. The Petitioner did not perfect a direct appeal, but later filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was amended by appointed counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals, contending that the post-conviction court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
HCA, Inc., v. American Protection Insurance and Industrial Risk Insurers, et al.
HCA, Inc. appeals the action of the trial court in granting summary judgment to the insurer/ |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
HCA v. American Protection Insurance & Industrial Risk - Concurring
I concur with the outcome of the Court’s opinion. However, I am writing separately to focus on HCA. Inc.’s burden of production in response to the insurers’ motion for summary judgment and on the effect of our construction of the “inventory exclusion” clauses in HCA’s all risk insurance contracts on this burden of production. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Citizens First Bank v. Andrew N. Hall
The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff on loan to defendant and set off the amounts of certain forged checks on defendant's accounts with bank against plaintiff's recovery. We affirm. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Dwayne Carter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Dwayne Carter, pled guilty in May of 2002 to two counts of forgery, one count of felony theft, two counts of misdemeanor theft, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest and one count of burglary of a vehicle in exchange for an effective sentence of six years and acceptance into a "Drug Court" program. The trial court set a sentencing date. Prior to sentencing, the petitioner was charged with several other offenses. In October of 2002, the petitioner appeared for sentencing on the previous guilty pleas and entered guilty pleas on four additional counts of forgery. By agreement, the petitioner's sentences on the subsequent offenses were considered with the prior offenses, resulting in an effective ten-year sentence for all of the charged offenses. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Jackson v. State of Tennessee
In this case, the Appellant, Anthony Jackson, has appealed from the trial court's order summarily dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion for the trial court's judgment to be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Janna Sheya Falk v. Geary Falk
This is a divorce case involving an invalid marriage resulting from the existence of a subsisting previous marriage at the time of the parties' marriage ceremony in 1995. At the time of the parties' marriage ceremony, the purported wife's divorce from a previous marriage was still pending. The wife's divorce from her prior marriage did not become final until three and one-half months following the parties' marriage ceremony. The parties lived together as husband and wife until the wife filed for divorce in 2003. The trial court declared the parties divorced pursuant to section 36-4-101(2) of the Tennessee Code. The trial court then classified the parties' "marital" and separate property, making an equitable division of the "marital" property. The husband appeals the trial court's order granting a divorce and awarding certain property to the wife. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Dewayne Ramsey v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Stacy Dewayne Ramsey, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The petition was timely filed. Approximately two months after the petition was filed, the post-conviction court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition without a hearing. Appellant has appealed from this order, and the State concedes that the matter should be reversed and remanded for proceedings in accordance with Post-Conviction Procedure Act. We agree and accordingly, reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for proceedings in accordance with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shamain Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Shamain Johnson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Johnson collaterally challenges his convictions for class B felony possession of cocaine and two counts of sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, class E felonies. In support of his arguments, Johnson contends that: (1) his community corrections sentences, resulting from these convictions, were not statutorily authorized; (2) his plea agreement, with regard to his convictions for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, "constitutes a plea to a non-existent offense and is therefore void;" and (3) his guilty pleas to the offenses were not knowingly or voluntarily entered. After review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ralph E. Scates v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Ralph E. Scates, pled guilty to two counts of theft, attempted misdemeanor theft, and simple possession of marijuana. He was placed on unsupervised probation for eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days. In January of 2004, the appellant filed a petition to expunge and seal records in both the cases in which he pled guilty and in previous cases, including several that had been dismissed or in which the grand jury had not returned a true bill. The trial court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s dismissal of the petition. Because the trial court properly denied the petition for expungement as to the cases which resulted in convictions, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment. Because the trial court improperly denied expungement of the records relating to cases which were dismissed or where a no true bill was returned by the grand jury, we remand the case to the trial court for expungement of those records. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Noel and Josephine Crawley v. Hamilton County, Tennessee
Plaintiffs' action for damages against defendant was dismissed by summary judgment on grounds that "fringe benefits" provided by defendant was plaintiff's exclusive remedy. We vacate the summary judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linda Overholt
Convicted of five counts of selling marijuana, the defendant, Linda H. Overholt, appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the prosecutor's trial conduct, various evidentiary rulings of the trial court, the denial of judicial diversion, and the trial court's sentencing determinations. Because the record supports the judgments of the trial court, we affirm the convictions and sentences. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandra Claudine Morrow Howard v. Mark Anthony Howard
The Trial Court’s classification, evaluation and division of marital property was appealed by the |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Johnson, Jr.
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of probation. The defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of possession of marijuana for resale and agreed to a six-year sentence as a Range I offender. Following a hearing to determine the manner of service, the trial court denied probation and ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. Upon careful review, we affirm the trial court's denial of probation; however, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of entry of a corrected judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |