Stone Fort Land Company v. The Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board, et al. - Concurring
This case involves eligibility for environmental cleanup funds. The plaintiff landowner appeals the decision of the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Tank Board finding the plaintiff ineligible to receive reimbursement from the petroleum underground storage tank fund established in Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-215-110. Upon initial review in chancery court, the Board’s decision was reversed. The trial court subsequently reconsidered its decision and, based on recent Tennessee appellate decisions, affirmed the Board’s decision to deny assistance. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pearl Nixon, v. Shoney's, Inc.
This is a personal injury slip and fall case. The plaintiff was injured when she fell in the defendant’s restaurant due to a tray negligently left on the floor. The defendant restaurant admits liability but asserts that the evidence does not support the amount of the trial court’s award and seeks a remittitur. We affirm the trial court’s decision as modified. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell L. Darnall, v. A+ Homecare, Inc., and James Bradley Smith, et al. - Concurring
The court has correctly affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Mr. Darnall’s Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (Supp. 1998) claim. Even though I concur with the court’s decision, I have prepared this separate opinion to state my understanding of the elements of a Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 claim. I find this restatement necessary because of the Western Section’s reliance on Johnson v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 759 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) in Merryman v. Central Parking Sys., Inc., No. 01A01-9203-CH-00076, 1992 WL 330404 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 1992) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Theresa G. Jenkins v. Lionel R. Barrett, Jr., and John G. Oliva - Concurring
The appellant states the issue before this Court thus: A single, narrow issue is presented for consideration in this appeal: Does material evidence within the meaning of Rule 13d, appear in the record which suports the jury’s verdict of $140 ,000.00 in compensatory damages, and, if so, did the trial court erroneously grant a new trial? The case history demonstrates that this issue is not properly before the Court for consideration. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell L. Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc. and James D. Smith
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from summary judgment granted to the Defendants in a complaint asserting retaliatory discharge with the action based solely upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-1-304. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Clay Romines
The defendant, James Clay Romines, appeals as of right from a ruling of the Blount County Criminal Court revoking his probation. The defendant presents one issue for appellate review: whether the trial court erred by ordering the defendant to serve eleven days in jail as punishment for a second violation of probation. After a review of the record, briefs of the parties, and appropriate law, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Brown
The appellant, Charles R. Brown, appeals as of right from his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) by a Blount County jury. The defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days. He was ordered to serve forty-eight hours in the county jail before being placed on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-seven days. The defendant was also fined $350. In this direct appeal, the defendant presents two issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the trial court erred in charging the jury. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray L. Taylor - Concurring
We granted this appeal to decide whether a defendant’s credibility may be impeached by reference to a prior conviction for a “felony involving dishonesty.” We hold that the trial court erred in ruling that the State could impeach the defendant by asking him whether he had been convicted of any “felonies involving dishonesty.” We hold, however, that the error was harmless.1 |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. George Langford - Concurring
We granted this appeal to decide whether: (1) the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of aggravated burglary and felony murder committed during the perpetration of an aggravated burglary; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to criminal trespass. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant and that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on criminal trespass. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the defendant’s convictions is affirmed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Barry Waddell
The Defendant, Barry Waddell, appeals as of right from his conviction in the Davidson County Crimina l Court. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two (2) counts of rape of a child (Counts 1 and 2) and two (2) counts of aggravated sexual battery (Counts 3 and 4). Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years for each count of rape of a child and ten (10) years for each count of aggravated sexual battery, with all sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of seventy (70) years. Defendant argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him to the maximum period of incarceration for his rape of a child convictions and erred in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm in pa rt, and reverse and modify in part. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Paul Carr Moss, Jr.
The defendant, Paul Carr Moss, Jr., was indicted for the first degree murder of his wife, Peggy Ann Moss. He was convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of twenty-five years. The defendant was fined $50,000.00. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Deborah Lorraine Brooks v. Rickey Lemar Brooks
We granted this appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in their determinations of the amount of child support to be paid by the child’s father. Although both the trial court and the Court of Appeals determined that the total monthly payment should be increased from four hundred dollars ($400.00) to six hundred fifty dollars ($650.00), each court reached its conclusion upon different reasons. We conclude that both courts erred and that the base amount of child support should have been $1,241.00 per month. In addition, Mr. Brooks shall pay the child's private education expenses per the parties agreement. |
Polk | Supreme Court | |
James Alford v. Bruce Hardwood Floors
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Catherine Mayo v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
02A01-9712-GS-00298
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Planet Rock vs. Regis Ins.
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Little Six Corporation vs. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Buford vs. Cunningham
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Advanced Sales vs. Wilson Co.
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Lowell Clayton Gredig, Jr.
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David A. Roettger v. Metro Government of Nashville & Davidson County, et al
|
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jenny C. Walker vs. James M. Walker
|
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Joel Guilds
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Stanley Abell
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Stanley Abell
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |