Linda L. Weber, v. Donald D. Weber, Jr.
M2006-2311-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

In this dispute over child support owing by the father, the Trial Court ordered child support ended on the grounds the child turned 18 and his high school class had graduated, but ordered payments of back child support arrearage. On appeal, we affirm.

Harry McLemore, Jr. v. Charles Traughber, Tennessee Boards of Probation and Paroles
M2007-00503-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. Mccoy

An inmate filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, alleging that the Board of Paroles acted arbitrarily and illegally in denying parole. The chancery court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The inmate appealed. We affirm.

Bessie L. White, et al. v. Premier Medical Group, et al.
M2006-01196-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ross H. Hicks

In this medical malpractice action against a treating physician, his medical group, and several hospital entities, the plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by including in the jury instructions the defense of superseding cause requested by the treating physician and his medical group. The plaintiffs argue the evidence was insufficient to justify the instruction. It is proper to charge the law upon an issue of fact within the scope of the pleadings upon which there is material evidence sufficient to sustain a verdict. The record contains material evidence regarding each of the essentialelements of the defense of superseding cause sufficient to sustain a verdict of  superseding cause; therefore, an instruction as to superseding cause was appropriate.

Bruce Wood, et al. v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Health, et al.
M2006-01599-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This is an appeal challenging the issuance of several permits to North American Galvanizing Company by the Air Pollution Division of the Metropolitan Department of Health. Appellants base their challenge on the failure of the Department to consider the location of the company as well as noise and exhaust fumes arising from truck traffic traveling through a residential neighborhood to and from the company. They also challenge the representation of both the Department and the  Boardof Health by Metropolitan Department of Law attorneys. The Chancellor ruled against the appellants. We affirm.

Paul Welcome v. State of Tennessee
E2006-02022-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz

The petitioner, Paul Welcome, appeals the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. He asserts he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he is entitled to relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.

Patsy L. Aldridge v. Pam Aldridge, et al. In Re: Conservatorship of Bill M. Aldridge
W2006-02334-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert S. Benham

This is a case involving a petition for appointment of conservator and a request for attorney’s fees by the non-petitioning spouse of the ward. The husband and wife were married, but lived apart.  The husband lived with his daughter from a previous marriage. Unknown by the husband’s children, he continued to see and financially support his estranged wife. The husband suffered from bipolar disorder requiring several hospitalizations. The husband, during a manic period, emptied his 401K account and purchased several vehicles and properties. The husband’s daughter petitioned the court for appointment of a conservatorship for her father. The court found that the husband was disabled, and appointed the daughter as the conservator over his person and a third-party attorney as the conservator over his finances. The wife was represented by counsel during the proceedings. The court ordered the conservator to pay the wife spousal support in the amount of $2,000 a month out of the husband’s $150,000 estate. The wife then petitioned the court for an award of her attorney’s fees, which the probate court denied. Wife appeals, arguing that the lower court has the statutory authority pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-109 to include in the award of financial support her attorney’s fees. We affirm.

Lawrence Levine et al. v. Ron Marsh et. al.
M2006-00297-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Randall Kennedy

This appeal involves a dispute over the personal property of a wife who was murdered by her husband. Following their appointment as conservators of her property, the wife’s parents filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against their son-in-law and certain members of his family seeking to recover their daughter’s personal property. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a $222,449.10 verdict for the parents against the husband’s brother, sister, and brother-in-law. On this appeal, the husband’s family members take issue with the denial of their motion for directed verdict based on the statute of limitations, the failure to join the original conservator as a necessary party, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the jury instructions.  We have determined that the trial court did not commit error during the trial and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Heatherly Awad v. Selma Curtis
MC-CV-CV-CD-02-20
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

This is a breach of contract case. The parties executed a contract for the sale of a beauty salon whereby, according to one of the provisions, Seller agreed to work for Buyer for a specific amount of time. Seller quit before the specified period expired. Both parties sued for breach of contract. The trial court awarded damages to Buyer in the amount of $18,000.00. Seller appeals, asserting that the provision at issue was too indefinite to be enforceable and challenging the damages awarded Buyer. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Highwoods Properties, Inc., et al. v. City of Memphis
W2007-00454-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Walter L. Evans

This appeal involves the second case filed by the appellants to challenge an annexation ordinance. Previously, the appellants filed a quo warranto action seeking to have the annexation ordinance declared null and void on various grounds. Other landowners had previously filed quo warranto actions that were consolidated and still pending, and the appellants sought to consolidate their action with the others. The trial court held that the appellants’ quo warranto action was not timely filed, and accordingly dismissed it. On appeal, this Court affirmed. The consolidated quo warranto proceedings concluded with a consent order approving the reasonableness of the annexation ordinance, but providing that the annexation would take place in two phases. The appellants then filed the present action seeking a declaration that the annexation accomplished through the consent order was procedurally invalid and unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Derrick Settles
W2006-02350-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

The Defendant, Derrick Settles, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of possession of over .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell. The jury sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for one murder conviction, and the trial court ordered a consecutive life sentence for the other. The trial court also merged the possession offenses into a single conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for that conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of his apartment and his confession because he lacked the intellectual capacity to validly consent to the search or effectively waive the rights guaranteed him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jerry D. Carmack et al. v. Louis W. Oliver, III
M2006-01873-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Landowners who hired an attorney to defend their property rights brought suit for legal malpractice
against that attorney related to his representation in the litigation over disputed property. The
defendant attorney filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the one-year statute of
limitations for malpractice claims had passed before the landowners filed their suit against him. The trial court granted the attorney’s motion. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendant attorney as to any allegations of delay in seeking an injunction against a trespassing neighbor, since the landowners had complained about the delay to several official bodies over two and a half years before they filed their complaint against their attorney. However, we reverse the trial court as to any alleged acts of legal malpractice that occurred within one year of the filing of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Serena Rucker v. St. Thomas Hospital
M2007-00716-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This is a common-law retaliatory discharge case. Plaintiff/Appellant alleged that she was wrongfully discharged from her employment with Defendant/Appellee. Defendant/Appellee moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff/Appellant appeals. We affirm.

Michael Ware v. Tommy Mills, Warden
W2007-00186-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Lee Moore Jr.

The Petitioner, Michael Ware, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
 

Michael W. Smith v. Delphus Hicks, Sheriff
W2007-00320-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Weber McCraw

The Petitioner, Michael W. Smith, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Trent Watrous, Individually, and as the surviving spouse and next of kin of Valerie Watrous v. Jack L. Johnson, et al.
W2007-00814-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim of negligent entrustment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Robert Crawford, Sr. et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc.et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
E2006-00987-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

The defendants’ filings in this case clearly establish that Teri Crawford does not have a cause of action for intentional interference with the dead body of her brother, Robert H. Crawford. That cause of action belonged to Mr. Crawford’s widow, to the exclusion of all others. Furthermore, in my opinion, the record before us negates Ms. Crawford’s alleged causes of action against all defendants except those asserted against the individuals and entities directly associated with the operation of the Tri-State Crematory (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Tri-State Defendants”). As to these latter individuals and entities, I believe the defendants’ filings fail to negate Ms. Crawford’s three causes of action for (1) intentional, (2) reckless, and (3) negligent infliction of mental distress. Therefore, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court was correct in dismissing Ms. Crawford’s complaint with respect to these “infliction of mental distress” theories.

Robert Crawford, Sr. , et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc., et al.
E2006-00987-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

This appeal involves one of numerous civil lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh and his former business, Tri-State Crematory, Inc., and others. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and siblings of Robert H. Crawford, Jr., whose body was sent to the Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The body, however, was not cremated and to this day the plaintiffs do not know what happened to their loved ones’ body. The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit after finding that the decedent’s surviving spouse was the only person with standing to bring the various tort claims asserted by the plaintiffs. The decedent’s sister, Teri Crawford, appeals that determination. We affirm.

Rondal Akers, et al. v. Buckner-Rush Enterprises, Inc., et al.
E2006-01513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

This is an appeal from three consolidated lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh, Marsh’s former business, Tri-State Crematory, and Buckner-Rush Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs are relatives and a girlfriend of three deceased individuals whose bodies were sent by Buckner-Rush Funeral Home to Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The bodies were not cremated and either were dumped or buried by Marsh on the Tri-State premises. The Trial Court dismissed all three lawsuits after holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring any of the tort, contract, or statutory claims at issue. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rondal Akers, et al. v. Buckner- Rush Enterprises Inc. et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
E2006-01513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in the case of Robert H. Crawford, Sr. et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc. et al., No. E2006-00987-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed November 21, 2007), I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as affirms the dismissal of the complaints filed by Rondal D. Akers, Jr., Lucinda Akers, Donna Burns, Susan Hall, Doyle Harden, Ricky Harden, Sandra Fogle, Mollie C. Denton, and Elaine Waldron, against the individuals and entities directly associated with the operation of Tri-State Crematory, as to the claims in those complaints alleging outrageous conduct/infliction of emotional distress. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

Gordon C. Collins v. Barry L. Arnold, et al. - Concurring
M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

I am in complete agreement with the court’s conclusions that the judgment in this case must be reversed because the trial court refused to give an instruction warranted by the facts and that the evidence does not warrant an award of punitive damages against either Graham Brothers Entertainment of Nashville or Tennessee Protection Agency. Because this case must be retried, I write separately with regard to the admissibility of the evidence regarding Mr. Gangwer’s prior conviction.

Gordon C. Collins v. Barry L. Arnold, et al.
M2004-02513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner.  The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000 against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal.

Marcus Terry A/K/A Marcus Benson, A/K/A Torian Benson v. Tommy Mills, Warden
W2006-01802-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The Petitioner, Torian Benson,1 appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee
W2007-00295-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee V. Coffee

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee (Tony Parker, Warden)
W2007-00936-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition
for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Rebecca L. Maino v. The Southern Company, Inc. D/B/A The Southern Company, et al.
W2007-00225-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendants based on the ten-year statute of repose applicable to products liability actions codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-28-103. We granted Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory appeal with respect to whether the savings statute saves a products liability action that was filed within the products liability statutes of limitations and repose, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled within one year where the products liability statute of repose expired during the one-year savings period. We hold Plaintiff may rely on the savings statute to refile her action. Summary judgment in favor of Defendants is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.