Paula P. King Booker v. The Boeing Company, d/b/a Boeing-Oak Ridge Company
We accepted a question certified to this Court from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to clarify the operation of the statute of limitations for discriminatory pay claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. After considering the arguments of the parties and the applicable authority, we hold that a claim of discriminatory pay may be brought at any time within one year that a plaintiff has received discriminatory pay and that back pay is available for the duration of the unequal pay. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Torian Dillard
The defendant, Torian Dillard, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, both Class E felonies. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of forty years as a multiple offender for the attempted murder conviction and six years as a career offender for each of the Class E felony convictions, for an effective sentence of fifty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the State excluded African-American venire members from his jury in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction, and the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Anthony Fisher and Shelby Lynn Hatter Fisher v. Jonathan Young
This a termination of parental rights and adoption case. Before the minor child at issue was born, the biological father was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in a correctional facility. The biological mother and her husband filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father and permit the mother’s husband to adopt the minor child. The trial court granted the petition. We affirm, finding grounds for termination established by the father’s confinement to prison for a ten year sentence when the minor child was less than eight years old, and finding clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interest of the child. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Marlon Hayes v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Marlon Hayes, appeals the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Hayes collaterally challenges his guilty pleas for first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery upon grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oscar C. Wells v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Oscar C. Wells, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as being time barred. On appeal, Wells asserts that his petition was timely filed because he delivered the petition to the appropriate prison official within the requisite one-year limitation period as authorized by Supreme Court Rule 28. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as time barred because the petition was stamped “filed” by the Shelby County Criminal Court Clerk’s office outside the one-year period. Because these allegations present a factual dispute as to whether Wells’ petition was timely filed, we vacate the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for resolution of this issue. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re J.J.C., D.M.C., and S.J.K. a/k/a K State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. John Calabretta
This is a termination of parental rights case. This is the second appeal in this matter. In the first appeal, the trial court had terminated the father’s parental rights based on abandonment for failure to support his two children. On appeal, this Court reversed the termination on that ground, but remanded the case for further proceedings on the ground of persistent conditions. On remand, the trial court conducted further proceedings and determined that clear and convincing evidence established persistent conditions that prevented the children’s safe return to the father. The father now appeals. We affirm, finding that the ground of persistent conditions was established by clear and convincing evidence. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mae Ellen Williams, et al. v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time under Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and in granting summary judgment to the defendants. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude (1) that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement of time because the plaintiffs failed to show excusable neglect under Rule 6.02 and (2) that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. As a result, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Richard S. Parker v. Margaret Mary Brennan
On this appeal, the Appellant challenges the award by the trial court of expenses totaling $2,611.42, for videotaping discovery depositions and other related video services as discretionary costs pursuant to Rule 54.04, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. This amount was awarded in addition to expenses for stenographic transcripts of the same depositions. Finding expenses related to videotaping and video related services not specifically identified as allowable expenses within the rule, we modify the trial court's award to delete those expenses. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Royal & Sunalliance v. Richard L. Loyd
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
William Ral Cross, Jr. v. Shelby County, Tennessee
Petitioner/Appellee Cross filed a complaint in federal court against Shelby County and Shelby County Deputy Sheriff Bishoff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal court awarded Shelby County partial summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. The action against Deputy Bishoff was heard by a jury, which awarded Mr. Cross damages and legal fees. Mr. Cross then filed a complaint in Shelby County Circuit Court alleging that, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-8-302, Shelby County was liable for the amount of damages awarded him in the federal court action. The trial court awarded Mr. Cross summary judgment, and Shelby County appeals. We reverse and award summary judgment to Shelby County on the grounds of res judicata. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Wilkerson
The appellant, Charles Edward Wilkerson, was charged in a three count indictment with possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, evading arrest, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Prior to trial, the appellant pled guilty to evading arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of criminal responsibility for the facilitation of the possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, a Class C felony. The appellant received a total effective sentence of three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his facilitation conviction. After a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Millen v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development
The Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was denied. Appellant petitioned for judicial review in the chancery court and that court affirmed the decision of the Board of Review. Appellant next appealed to this Court and we affirm the court below. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State ex rel. Paula A. Flowers v. Tennessee Trucking Association Self Insurance Group Trust, et al.
Seven members of the Tennessee Trucking Association Self-Insurance Group Trust appeal the post-liquidation assessment against members of the self-insured group to fund a $2.8 million deficit. The self-insured group trust was declared insolvent in 2004 by the Chancery Court, following which the Commissioner of Commerce and Insurance was appointed Liquidator of the Trust. In the capacity of Liquidator, the Commissioner was responsible for administering the Trust, which included making assessments of the members of the Trust to satisfy its financial obligations. The appellants contend the assessment methodology employed by the Liquidator, which modified the proportionate financial obligations of the members, constituted an impermissible modification of the premium structure the members agreed upon. The trial court determined the only proscription upon making assessments was a requirement the methodology be equitable. Finding the methodology utilized by the Liquidator was equitable, the trial court approved the assessments. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Saturn Corporation v. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
Saturn Corporation appeals the Chancery Court’s entry of summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor. Saturn filed its action in Chancery Court seeking a refund of a percentage of franchise and excise taxes paid in fiscal year 1999-2000. In this de novo review of the trial court’s judgment, we hold that the exemption claimed does not apply to the taxpayer, that the exemption as applied does not violate the equal protection provisions of state and federal constitutions, and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael James Grubb
This is a direct appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict for aggravated robbery. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant raises four issues: (1) the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his car, (2) the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the preliminary hearing testimony of a police officer who was deceased at the time of trial, (3) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of aggravated robbery, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Griggs
Following a search of his residence, Defendant, Raymond Griggs, was indicted on two counts. Count one charged possession of a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver .5 grams or more, and count two charged Defendant with being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant. The trial court denied the motion. A jury trial was held and Defendant was convicted of count two, convicted felon in possession of a handgun. A mistrial was declared as to count one, presumably because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Defendant filed a motion for new trial which the trial court subsequently denied. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the conviction of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
US LEC of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority
This appeal involves a dispute between two telecommunications services providers in the Chattanooga market. A privately owned provider filed a complaint with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority asserting that a competing provider owned by a municipal electric utility was receiving an illegal cross-subsidy because the electric utility was permitting the provider to use its name without compensation. One of the Authority’s hearing officers conducted a hearing and then filed an initial order concluding that the provider owned by the electric utility was not receiving a crosssubsidy in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-402 (2005). After the initial order became final, the private provider filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 12 petition for review with this court. We have concluded that the provider’s uncompensated use of the electric utility’s name is not a cross-subsidy prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-52-402. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Nicholson - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Nicholson
We granted review to address the following certified question that was reserved by Defendant, James D. Nicholson, following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine for resale: “whether the evidence seized from the defendant in this case should have been suppressed because it was seized pursuant to the warrantless arrest of the defendant for which the police had no probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Seven of the Tennessee Constitution as well as the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tennessee v. Perry Thomas Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330 (Tenn. 2002).” After being instructed to “hold up” by a detective, Defendant turned and ran. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Defendant was seized when he was thereafter pursued and apprehended by officers. The intermediate court concluded that, because the detectives lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate such a seizure, the evidence flowing therefrom must be suppressed. After careful review of the record and applicable authority, we concur with the judgment rendered by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, reverse and vacate Defendant’s conviction and dismiss the charges. We also emphasize the importance of creating an adequate record for review in cases such as this one. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Thomas Fain Dalton, v. Linda Faye Dalton
In this divorce case, the appellant (wife) has appealed from the final divorce decree and division of marital assets by the Circuit Court for McMinn County.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Isaac Jones v. State of Tennessee And Warden Stephen Dotson
The Petitioner, Isaac Jones, 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 pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick L. Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner Derrick L. 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. The Petitioner has failed to establish his entitlement to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Granderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Granderson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Joseph Granderson, No. 02C01-9712-CR-00466, 1998 WL 506658 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Aug. 20, 1998), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Mar. 8, 1999). Subsequently, the supreme court denied permission to appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on numerous grounds. Counsel was appointed and several amended petitions were filed. After hearing evidence on the petition over the course of several months, the post-conviction court entered an order granting post-conviction relief on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to properly inform the petitioner of his potential sentence if convicted of first degree murder. The State appeals the post-conviction court’s decision. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sherry A. Hubble et al. v. Dyer Nursing Home
This workers’ compensation action arose out of an automobile accident occurring while the plaintiff was on her way to an orientation session held at a location separate from the nursing home facility at which she had been hired to work. The chancery court awarded the plaintiff 95% permanent partial disability and also ordered the defendant employer to reimburse State Farm, the insurer of the driver of the automobile, for medical payments made under the driver’s policy. The court did not order reimbursement for amounts paid by State Farm under the liability portion of the policy. On appeal, the defendant argues: 1) the plaintiff was not an employee at the time of the accident; 2) if she was an employee, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the plaintiff’s employment; 3) the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to reimburse State Farm for medical payments made; and 4) the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant a credit for those amounts already paid by State Farm. The plaintiff appeals the finding of 95% permanent partial disability, arguing that the evidence supports a finding of permanent total disability. State Farm appeals the court’s denial of reimbursement for the amount State Farm paid under the liability provision of the policy. We accepted review before the case was heard or considered by the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. Upon due consideration, we affirm the decision of the chancery court that the plaintiff was an employee, that she was injured in the course and scope of her employment, and that she suffered 95% permanent partial disability. We also hold that the trial court correctly ordered the defendant to reimburse State Farm for the medical benefits paid while denying reimbursement for the amounts paid under the liability provision. Finally, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to a credit for the amount paid by State Farm. |
Gibson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James Leon Miller
On May 15, 2004, the victim, Charles Lawuary, was shot and killed in Humboldt, Tennessee in an area known as “the crossing.” A bystander was grazed by a bullet. The defendant, James L. Miller, and a co-defendant, Charles Lewis, were later arrested for the shootings. The Gibson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for criminal responsibility for first degree murder and criminal responsibility for aggravated assault. Following a jury trial held on March 21, 2005, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction and six years for the aggravated assault conviction, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. The defendant appeals, arguing that, the State failed to prove the venue of the crime, the trial judge failed to charge the natural and probable consequences rule to the jury, there was juror misconduct when one juror felt she was coerced into voting for a guilty verdict, and there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction. We have reviewed the record in this case and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals |