Amanda Lynn Dewald, et al., v. HCA Health Services of Tennessee, et al.
In this medical malpractice appeal, the trial court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment finding that a factual dispute exists as to whether the hospital may be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor radiologist based on a theory of apparent agency. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment to the hospital on all grounds. We granted permission to appeal and consolidated this case for argument with Boren v. Weeks, No. M2007-00628-SC-R11-CV, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. May 6, 2008). In Boren, in an opinion filed contemporaneously herewith, we adopted the analysis derived from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429 for determining when a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of independent contractor physicians. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ grant of summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings and for reconsideration of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment consistent with the analysis and new standard adopted in Boren. |
Rutherford | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Shane Delano Hunter
In November 2005, a Putnam County grand jury indicted the defendant, Shane Delano Hunter, on one count of premeditated first degree murder in connection with an incident that occurred in August 2005. Following a January 2007 jury trial in Putnam County Criminal Court, the jury convicted the defendant of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence produced at trial is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
O’Rane M. Cornish, Sr. v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.
This appeal involves the lower court’s dismissal of a case on the basis of forum non conveniens. The plaintiff, a resident of Shelby County, brought suit in circuit court in Shelby County. The plaintiff alleged that he drank a glass of cranberry juice that contained a dead fly at one of the defendant’s restaurants, located in Tunica County, Mississippi. From that incident, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered emotional and physical harm. The defendant’s answer requested that the court dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that the more appropriate forum was a circuit court in Tunica County, Mississippi. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the claim on the basis of forum non conveniens. After the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, the trial court entered an order denying the motion and setting out its findings concerning its decision to decline jurisdiction. The plaintiff appeals, and we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Maurice Shaw v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of cocaine over 0.5 grams with intent to deliver and one count of delivery of over 0.5 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to eleven years on each count to be served concurrently. Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to this Court, and we affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Maurice Shaw, No. W2005-02097-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3085503 *1-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 21, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 9, 2007). Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the petition, and the instant appeal followed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willis Ayers
Defendant, Willis Ayers, was indicted for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was tried jointly with co-defendant, Charles Curtis, and another co-defendant, David Milken, was tried separately for the charged offenses. Co-defendant Curtis’s case is not part of his appeal. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-two years for his second degree murder conviction, and as a Range II, multiple offender, to fourteen years for his facilitation of especially aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences consecutively, for an effective sentence of thirty-six years. In his appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that State’s witness Corey Smith was an accomplice to the charged offenses; (3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for severance; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen Q. Manchester v. Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania, et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This case was remanded by a prior workers’ compensation appeals panel for recalculation of the award of permanent partial disability benefits. On remand, the award was modified. The employer, Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., paid the judgment, but declined to pay post-judgment interest. The trial court denied a motion to require payment of interest that was filed by the the employee, Steven Q. Manchester, and he has appealed. We reverse the trial court and hold that Mr. Manchester is entitled to post-judgment interest on the modified amount of the award from the date of the original judgment. |
Chester | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Sharon P. Adams v. City of Kingsport, Tennessee
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Her job as a school psychologist required her to travel between schools and other sites in the City of Kingsport. She had gone to a restaurant for lunch after completing an assignment at an elementary school. She was injured in an automobile accident which occurred as she was leaving the parking lot of the restaurant. At the time, she was returning to her office to pick up materials for an assignment at a second school. The trial court granted Employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Employee’s injury did not arise from or occur in the course of her employment. Employee has appealed. We hold that Employer was not entitled to summary judgment, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Washington | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Cash
The defendant, Robert Cash, appeals his Bradley County Criminal Court conviction of one charge of aggravated sexual battery of a person under the age of thirteen, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to prove intent. We find that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl Williams Rogers, M.D. v. State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company
This case involves an endorsement to a medical malpractice insurance policy. The physician insured under the policy brought a declaratory judgment action seeking rescission of the endorsement based upon a mutual mistake of fact. We affirm the decision of the trial court dismissing the physician’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy Sollis
The defendant, Troy Sollis, was convicted of two counts of possession of more than .5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of felony evading arrest, and two counts of misdemeanor evading arrest. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 20 years, 11 months, and 29 days to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court’s comments during a pretrial conference established bias and that the sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scotty D. Hatfield
The defendant, Scotty D. Hatfield, originally charged with three counts of aggravated assault and one count of felony reckless endangerment, was convicted of one count of attempted aggravated assault and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. The case must be remanded, however, for the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting that the defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated assault rather than aggravated assault on Count 1. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian E. Harris, M.D. v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, et al.
Dr. Brian E. Harris (“Doctor”), the insured, brought this action for breach of contract and on the basis of various torts. He alleged that UnumProvident Corporation (“Insurance Company” or “the company”) had wrongfully canceled his disability policy and retroactively rejected his disability claim. The trial court granted Insurance Company summary judgment. The court found that Doctor had filed his suit outside the applicable limitations periods. Doctor appeals, claiming that his suit |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Donald W. McCuthcheon, et al vs. TND Associates, L.P., et al
A jury awarded the plaintiff homeowners judgment against their residential building contractor for damages sustained by the plaintiffs when the slope upon which their home was constructed failed. The defendant contractor appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify outside his area of expertise and by allowing another witness to testify as an expert when the plaintiff had failed to identify him as a witness before trial. Upon careful review of the record, it is our determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of the testimony of these witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Bridgett Hill, et al v. NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC, et al
The administrators of the estate of a woman who died after being transported by ambulance from a nursing home to a hospital filed a wrongful death suit which named the nursing home and the ambulance service as defendants. The nursing home responded with a motion to compel arbitration, citing a provision in the admissions agreement which the decedent had signed, requiring both parties to submit any disputes to arbitration and to waive their rights to jury trial. The trial court found the arbitration clause to be unconscionable and denied the motion. The nursing home then filed a direct appeal to this court pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-319. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bridgett Hill, et al v. NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC, et al - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of S.H.
Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his three-year old daughter. Based upon the record that included persistent violent behavior directed at the child’s mother, we conclude the trial court did not err in terminating Father’s rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Carson v. Waste Connections of Tennessee, Inc.
This is the second appeal of a damage award for negligence. The plaintiff owned a house with a detached carport. During a delivery, the defendant company’s driver backed the delivery truck into one of the four columns supporting the carport structure, causing it to partially collapse. The plaintiff homeowner filed a lawsuit against the defendant company, alleging negligence and seeking damages. Liability was conceded and a trial proceeded on the amount of damages. There was disputed testimony on the condition of the roof structure of the carport before the defendant’s driver hit it. After the trial, the trial court found that the carport did not have a “roof” at the time of the accident, and so it deducted the cost of the “roof” of the carport from the damage award. The defendant company appealed. In the first appeal, we found that the record did not clearly indicate the trial court’s findings underlying the award of damages, and remanded the case for clarification. On remand, the trial court explained its damage award. The defendant company appeals again in light of the trial court’s clarification of the record. Finding that the preponderance of the evidence does not weigh against the trial court’s findings, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Dewayne Cannon
Defendant was convicted of aggravated rape. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction but remanded for re-sentencing. Thereafter, we granted permission to appeal to consider the following issues: 1) whether the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the admission into evidence of pantyhose the victim was allegedly wearing at the time of the rape; 2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; 3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defense motion to suppress the identification of his DNA profile from a DNA database; 4) whether admission of the victim’s statements into evidence through third parties violated Defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation; 5) whether the friendship between the trial court and one of the prosecuting attorneys created a serious appearance of impropriety and biased the trial court against Defendant; and 6) whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by remanding this case for re-sentencing. After considering these issues, we conclude that the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the admission into evidence of the pantyhose and that the victim’s statements describing the assault to the police officers and her statements to the sexual assault nurse examiner were testimonial and admitted in violation of Defendant’s right of confrontation. We further hold that the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and Defendant’s motion for recusal. Because the error in admitting the pantyhose into evidence was not harmless, however, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape and remand for a new trial. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Dewayne Cannon - Concurring
I concur in the result reached by the majority, particularly the excellent analysis pertaining to the confrontation clauses of the federal and state constitutions; however, I would have affirmed that portion of the opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals holding that the article of clothing containing semen identified as that of the defendant was properly admitted as evidence, despite any weakness in the chain of custody. In my view, the majority places an inordinate degree of emphasis on the initial link in the chain and falls short of affording the trial judge adequate deference under our limited scope of review. Because, however, other evidence offered by the State violated constitutional principles, and the errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, I agree that a new trial is warranted. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
John Hohman v. James A. Town, et al.
This application for an extraordinary appeal concerns whether a trial court should consider matters outside the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) and (3). The trial court declined to consider matters outside the pleadings and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the trial court should have considered the affidavits and other documents submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss, we grant the application, vacate the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the motion. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Torrie Perkins
The defendant, Torrie Perkins, appeals from convictions of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder rendered by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole and twenty-five years. In his appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for correction of the judgment for the first degree murder conviction. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shakir Adams
The defendant, Shakir Adams, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. The defendant appeals his conviction and argues: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction; (2) that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to administer a jury questionnaire; (3) that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance; (4) that he was prejudiced by the court’s comments both pre-trial and during trial; (5) that he was prejudiced by the admission of evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang; and (6) that he was prejudiced by the erroneous exclusion of evidence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kamara L. Whittington
Defendant pled guilty to simple possession of cocaine. Defendant properly preserved the following certified question of law for review, “Whether the informant’s credibility was sufficiently set forth to establish probable cause in the affidavit which provided support for issuance of the search warrant in this case.” After a thorough review of the record, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the indictment against Defendant is dismissed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lee Hayes v. Gibson County, Tennessee
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights under Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-24-102 as amended in 2001. Plaintiff asserted that the 2001 amendments to the general statute repealed by implication a 2000 private act establishing the compensation of the Gibson County Juvenile Court Clerk. The trial court determined the amendments to the statute superseded the private act, and that the salary for the juvenile court clerk should be established according to Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-24-102 as amended in 2001. We reverse. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlotte Yvonne Turner
The State of Tennessee appeals the decision of the Obion County Circuit Court suppressing evidence obtained as a result of a police search of the residence of the Appellee, Charlotte Yvonne Turner. Turner, a parolee, was convicted of drug related offenses in Kentucky, with her parole being subsequently transferred to Tennessee. Turner’s vehicle was stopped by Union City police officers, who were familiar with her status as a parolee. After the stop, Turner and the vehicle were searched for drugs based upon one officer’s suspicion that she was involved in drug activity. After a fruitless search for contraband of both her person and vehicle, the officer demanded that Turner allow a search of her home, pursuant to a condition of her parole. No drugs were found during the search of her residence; however, Turner directed officers to a handgun, which was located in a bedroom. The weapon was seized, and Turner was subsequently indicted for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Turner filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the State argues that the search of the residence was lawful under the recent holding of the United States Supreme Court decision of Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193 (2006). After review, we conclude that the police search of Turner’s residence was unreasonable and affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals |