Whirlpool Corporation v. Virginia LaSalle v. Sue Ann Head, Administrator of the Division of Worker's Compensation, 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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee asserts that the trial court erred in awarding her a 43.75% permanent partial disability, rather than permanent total disability. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter judgment to the employee for permanent and total disability. We also conclude that the trial court erred by failing to calculate the disability resulting from the shoulder injury independent of the employee’s preexisting back injury. We therefore remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavon Nunnery
After a bench trial, the Rutherford County Circuit Court convicted the defendant, Lavon Nunnery, of misdemeanor assault for threatening to turn his pit bulldog loose on his neighbor. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, to be served consecutively to the three-year sentence for assault with a deadly weapon for which he was on probation at the time of the instant offense. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing that the proof was insufficient to show that the victim reasonably feared imminent bodily injury from the dog. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dattel Family Limited Partnership v. Mary G. Wintz
This is an insurance case. The plaintiff landlord purchased insurance on an apartment building that he owned. The defendant tenant leased an apartment in the landlord’s building. A fire occurred and damaged the apartment building. Pursuant to the insurance policy, the plaintiff insurance carrier paid the landlord to cover the fire damage. The landlord and the insurance carrier, as the landlord’s subrogee under the contract of insurance, filed a lawsuit against the tenant, claiming negligence and breach of contract and seeking compensation for the damage to the apartment building caused by the fire. The tenant moved for summary judgment, asserting that, as a tenant, she was an implied coinsured under the landlord’s insurance policy, and that consequently the plaintiff insurance carrier had no right of subrogation against the tenant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the tenant. The landlord and the insurance carrier appeal. We affirm, holding that, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, the tenant is deemed a co-insured under the landlord’s insurance policy, and therefore subrogation against the tenant is not available to the insurance carrier. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mindy Sue Dodd v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mindy Sue Dodd, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder in the death of her husband, Sherman Henry Dodd. She received concurrent sentences of life in prison and twenty years. This court affirmed her convictions on direct appeal, and her application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court was denied. State v. Mindy S. Dodd, No. M2002-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22999444, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 23, 2003), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. June 1, 2004). The petitioner sought post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, denial of her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court found that the petitioner had failed to show that her trial counsel was ineffective and dismissed her petition. Following our review of the record and the findings of the post-conviction court, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Scott v. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., 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 § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the trial court found the employee’s hearing loss to be compensable, and awarded benefits for ninety percent hearing loss to both ears. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in reopening the proof and ordering an independent medical examination after the case had been tried and a ruling had been issued. The employer also contends that the trial court erred in finding that the employee’s hearing loss was work-related, and that the size of the award is excessive. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding on causation, even if the post-trial evidence is not considered, and affirm the amount of the award of permanent partial disability. |
DeKalb | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Johnny Townsend v. C & GM Urban Electric Service, Inc., 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 hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court awarded 33% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employee has appealed that ruling, contending that the trial court erred in excluding medical proof concerning a pre-existing disability unrelated to his work injury. The employee further contends that the trial court erred in failing to award permanent total disability benefits. We conclude that the exclusion of the medical evidence was error, but that it did not affect the result of the case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to permanent partial disability benefits. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Edwin Gomez, et al.
This matter is before us upon remand by the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of that Court’s decision in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S.__, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). In our |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Christopher Maclin
The Defendant, Robert Christopher Maclin, was convicted of driving on a revoked license and possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to thirteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his cocaine conviction because he was not in possession of cocaine when he was arrested. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Hall
Following a jury trial, Joseph Hall was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Defendant was sentenced to ten years for each count to run concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred by failing to require that the state provide defense counsel with taped forensic interviews of the victims; (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Defendant of aggravated sexual battery; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted aggravated sexual battery. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
This Is the Second Appeal of this Breach of Contract Case in Gary Weaver, et al., v. Thomas
This is the second appeal of this breach of contract case. In Gary Weaver, et al v. Thomas R. McCarter, et al, No. W2004-02803-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 1529506 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2006), this Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and remanded the case “for further clarification concerning the amount of damages awarded with respect to plaintiff’s claims of negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.” Upon remand, the trial court entered judgment against the defendants jointly and severally and in favor of plaintiffs for compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding pre-judgment interest, we reverse that portion of the Judgment. We reverse in part and affirm in part. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Stephen L. Meisenheimer & Michael Loring Meisenheimer ex rel. Stephen L. Meisenheimer v. Gordon Meyer
Gordon Meyer appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate the judgment entered against him pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Meyer and his former wife, Leslie Meyer, were sued by Stephen and Michael Meisenheimer after Michael Meisenheimer, a minor, was injured during a birthday party at the defendants’ residence. Mr. Meyer and Mrs. Meyer failed to appear for trial, and the trial court, after hearing the plaintiffs’ proof, entered a judgment against the defendants in the amount of $12,683.25. Mrs. Meyer’s debt was discharged in bankruptcy, and the plaintiffs sought to collect from Mr. Meyer. The judgment was revived in 2003, and after the assignee of the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Mr. Meyer to answer postjudgment interrogatories, Mr. Meyer filed a Rule 60.02 motion to vacate the judgment. Although two attorneys entered pre-trial appearances on behalf of Mr. Meyer and Mrs. Meyer, one of whom filed an answer for the couple in circuit court, Mr. Meyer denied knowledge of the lawsuit and claimed that he did not receive notice of the trial date. Mr. Meyer submitted an affidavit from one of the attorneys who appeared on his behalf, claiming that he did not remember ever talking to Mr. Meyer about the lawsuit. An affidavit from a third attorney, Stephen Bowling, who represented Mr. Meyer in his divorce suit and to whom a copy of the judgment in this case was mailed, confirmed that he would not have accepted service or forwarded any legal documents for Mr. Meyer if the documents did not pertain to the divorce action. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled Mr. Meyer’s Rule 60.02 motion, and he appeals. After careful review, we affirm, finding that Mr. Meyer failed to meet his burden of proof to justify Rule 60.02 relief. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Greta Denise Smith (Austin) v. Ricky Allan Smith
This appeal involves a petition for past due child support. When the parties divorced in 1993, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent of the child, and the father was ordered to pay child support “directly to” the mother. In 1998, the mother remarried. From that point forward, the father made his child support checks payable to the child, not to the mother. Nevertheless, the mother endorsed the checks, deposited them into the same bank account as she had before, and maintained control over the use of the funds. Years later, in 2005, the father filed a petition to modify custody, seeking to be designated as primary residential parent. The mother filed a counterclaim for child support arrearages, claiming that the father had not made proper payments as required under the divorce decree since 1998, and that he should not receive credit for the child support checks that were made payable to the child. After a hearing, the trial court gave the father credit for the child support checks. The trial court reasoned that, although the checks were made payable to the child, the money remained in the mother’s control and she treated it as her own. The mother now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the father should receive credit for the disputed payments under the circumstances presented. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Currie
The defendant, Antonio Currie, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in denying probation. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allen Jean Stephens v. State of Tennessee
A Weakley County Circuit Court jury convicted the petitioner, Allen Jean Stephens, of possession of more than one-half gram of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to an effective sentence of twenty three years in confinement. This court affirmed the petitioner’s convictions. See State v. Allen Jean Stephens, No. M2004-00531-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 668 (Jackson, June 23, 2005), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2005). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to argue at his pretrial suppression hearing that no probable cause existed for a search warrant to be issued for his home and failed to argue on direct appeal that the trial court did not make a necessary finding of fact regarding the motion to suppress. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Alan Winsett v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Tony Alan Winsett, appeals the Obion County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Delayed Appeal” following the Circuit Court’s March 28, 2006 dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged only that his sentence was illegal. On January 9, 2007, Winsett, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion for Delayed Appeal” seeking to appeal the March 2006 dismissal of the petition. In his motion, Winsett also asserted new grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel and a motion to suppress issue. After review, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Brown v. Tony Parker, Warden (State Of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Christopher Brown, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dontae Lamont Brown
A Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Dontae Lamont Brown, of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to thirty-two years and eight years, respectively, and merged the convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erred by giving the jury a flight instruction, and (3) the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the jury’s guilty verdicts and the appellant’s thirty-two-year sentence for attempted murder. However, given that the trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted murder conviction, the court should have entered only one judgment of conviction. Therefore, we remand the case for the trial court to enter a single judgment reflecting the merger of the convictions. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Renard Steel
The defendant, Calvin Renard Steel, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of possession with the intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of twelve years as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal, he contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We conclude that no error exists, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Buford v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Curtis Buford, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of aggravated robbery, and he received a sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robin Chambers
The defendant, Robin M. Chambers, pled guilty to twenty-two counts of forgery, Class E felonies, twenty-three counts of identity theft, Class D felonies, three counts of theft of property under $500, Class A misdemeanors, and one count of criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. The defendant was sentenced to fourteen years and six months in confinement as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant was denied alternative sentencing by the trial court. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her alternative sentencing instead of the imposed term of confinement. Following our review of the full record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daisy L. Miller, Surviving Spouse of Massey Miller, Deceased v. Lehman-Roberts Company
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 hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee died as a result of a compensable occupational disease, silicosis, which was caused by exposure to silica dust in the course of his employment. The court awarded death benefits and specified medical and funeral expenses to employee’s widow. The employer has appealed that ruling, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding on causation. In the alternative, the employer requests that the case be remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of a set-off, if any, for Social Security old-age insurance benefits in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i)(2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Perry
The appellant, Christopher Perry, was convicted of the first degree murder of Stanley Johnson, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment. In the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the court should have found that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Upon reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Leon Burnette, Jr.
A Hardeman County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Aaron Leon Burnette, Jr., of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, and evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to ten, eight, and four years, respectively, and ordered that he serve the ten- and four-year sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence and ordered consecutive sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Marable v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Marable, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was entered unknowingly and involuntarily. After review, we conclude that no error exists, and we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. King - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion because I, too, conclude that the certified question does not clearly identify the scope and limits of the reserved issue. However, I disagree with the majority opinion’s view of the other reasons it uses to forbid the appeal. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals |