Burchell Insurance v. Western Sizzlin Steakhouse
Action by corporation for judgment on promissory notes representing loans made to partnership resulted in Judgment against defendant partner for one-half of amount of the loans plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
CBM Package Liquor, et al. v. City of Maryville, et al.
In this case it is argued that the Trial Court erred in approving the decision of the Appellees, the City of Maryville and the City Council for the City of Maryville, to issue certificates of compliance to three applicants as a precondition to each such applicant securing a license to operate a retail liquor store from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Henderson Jolley, et al, v. Wanda K. Henderson
This is a will contest case. Patricia Henderson Jolley and Howard E. Henderson, Jr. (collectively "the Contestants") appeal the chancery court's judgment that they do not have standing to contest their father's will. The Contestants contend that the chancery court erred in addressing the issue of their standing and in other ways. They argue that their stepmother, Wanda K. Henderson ("the Executrix"), failed to raise the standing issue and, as a consequence, waived it. They also rely on alleged procedural errors and contend that they do have standing. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Deron A. Hatton v. CSX Transportation
This is a an action for damages under FELA wherein the Plaintiff claimed that he was negligently exposed to toxic chemicals in the workplace. The Defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defense of the three-year statute of limitations, to which the discovery rule was applicable. This issue was bifurcated and tried separately, to the same jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiff. On the issues of liability, causation, and damages [the second phase of the trial] the jury found in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the issue of the statute of limitation should not have been bifurcated, that the court should have directed a verdict for the Plaintiff on account of OSHA violations, and the exclusion-admission of expert testimony. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
A.D. Doe And M.A. Doe v. May et al.
The plaintiff A.D. Doe for himself and his daughter M.A. Doe sued the Sheriff of Knox County and the County itself for damages when M.A. Doe was allegedly raped by a deputy sheriff. The complaint alleged that the sheriff was liable on his bond and on his oath of office and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-302 imposed liability on the County because the deputy was acting “by virtue of or under color of the office.” The Circuit Court of Knox County dismissed the complaint against the Sheriff and the County for the failure to state a claim. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felicia Murphy
The appellant, Felicia Murphy, appeals the sentencing decision of the DeKalb County Circuit Court following revocation of her probation. In December 2001, Murphy pled guilty to misdemeanor reckless endangerment and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty days, which was to be suspended after service of ten days. While on probation Murphy was found to be in violation of her probation, resulting in the extension of her probationary period for an additional six months. On the day before this extended period was to expire a violation warrant was issued, which alleged numerous violations of conditions of her probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked her probation and ordered reinstatement of her original sentence. On appeal, she argues that the trial court "acted too harshly" by revoking her sentence and, instead, should have extended her probationary period for one year. Finding no merit to Murphy's claim, the judgment of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering reinstatement of her original eleven-month and twenty-nine-day sentence is affirmed. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Barnard v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frank A. Barnard, was convicted in 1992 of first degree murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated sexual battery, for which he was sentenced, respectively, to sentences of life, eight years, and ten years, with the latter sentence to be served consecutively to the first two. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus, he claimed that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose judgment for the murder conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this timely appeal followed. After review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Benton v. The Vanderbilt University
We granted this appeal to determine whether a third-party beneficiary who seeks to enforce a contract between a hospital and an insurance carrier may be bound by an arbitration provision in the contract. The trial court denied the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the thirdparty beneficiary was not a party to the contract between the hospital and the insurance carrier. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the arbitration provision could be enforced against the third- party beneficiary in this case. After reviewing the record and authority, we conclude that an arbitration provision in a contract is enforceable against a third-party beneficiary who has filed a cause of action seeking to enforce the contract. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Larry Benton v. The Vanderbilt University - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Clayton O. Lovlace, Jr. v. Susan Verlain Irvine Lovlace
The trial court granted Mother's petition for conservatorship of the parties' disabled son; enforced MDA provision requiring Father to pay child support beyond child attaining age of majority; increased Father's child support obligation; and ordered Father to continue to maintain life and disability insurance. We affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
James Galloway v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
We granted review in this workers’ compensation appeal to determine whether an employee who was less than age 60 on the date of injury, but who reached maximum medical improvement and permanent total disability status after age 60, is entitled to a minimum of 260 weeks of benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2003). The Chancellor determined that because the employee was less than 60 years of age when the injury occurred, he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits for only 232 weeks until he was eligible for full benefits under the Social Security Act. The employee’s appeal was transferred to the full Supreme Court prior to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel hearing argument and issuing its decision. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the Chancellor properly construed the statute in awarding the employee 232 weeks of permanent total disability benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i). We therefore affirm the Chancellor’s judgment. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
Michael R. Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael R. Lewis, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he claims that ineffectiveness of trial counsel resulted in an invalid, 2001 jury conviction of reckless aggravated assault and that post-conviction relief from the conviction is warranted. Because the record supports the post-conviction court’s findings and conclusion, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Stevenson
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Robert L. Stevenson, of burglary of a building, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) that the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach him with prior convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis James Varner
The Defendant, Dennis James Varner, entered a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence attendant upon his stop at a roadblock. The Defendant reserved for this Court's ruling a certified question of law regarding the constitutionality of his stop by law enforcement officers. Upon our review of the record and pertinent legal authority, we have determined that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and dismiss the charges against the Defendant arising out of his stop at a roadblock conducted in contravention of Tennessee's constitution. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Theresa Caldwell, et al., v. Canada Trace, Inc.
This case involves the attachment of a mobile home and its subsequent transport to a storage facility. The Appellee sued out an attachment on the Appellants’ mobile home to secure payment of past rent due on a tenancy at Appellee’s trailer park. Appellee had the mobile home transported after it was attached and Appellants sued Appellee for damages to the mobile home. The Shelby County General Sessions Court found in favor of Appellants, and Appellee appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court found in favor of Appellee, and Appellants now appeal to this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Eugene Fortner
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies. He was also convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. The defendant contends on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite intent required for committing first degree murder, (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on diminished capacity, and (3) the sentence was excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Damien M. Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from his denial of post-conviction relief. He alleges ineffective counsel and error by the post-conviction judge. After careful review, we conclude that the petitioner failed to prove ineffective counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Gass
The petitioner, Steven Gass, was convicted by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and attempted rape of a child. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of thirty-two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, citing several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl E. Leggett, Sr.
The Defendant, Carl E. Leggett, Sr., was indicted by the Franklin County Grand Jury for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of facilitation of possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to serve nine years in confinement and ordered to pay a $70,000 fine. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. The Defendant also challenges his sentence. After a careful review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court on sufficiency grounds and dismiss the charges against the Defendant. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl E. Leggett, Sr. - Dissenting
I concur with the portion of the majority opinion which would affirm the trial court’s judgment regarding sentencing. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of facilitation of possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry L. Shropshire, Pro Se v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Terry Shropshire, 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 by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has expired. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Edward Dicken v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Edward Dicken, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Charles Henderson
On August 1, 2001, Defendant, Anthony Charles Henderson, entered guilty pleas to two counts of sale of cocaine in an amount less than .5 grams, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Defendant received concurrent sentences of five years for his convictions with ninety days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on supervised probation. Defendant was also ordered to pay $2,000 in fines. On July 24, 2002, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Defendant violated the conditions of his probation and ordered Defendant to serve his original sentences in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court’s revocation of probation, arguing that there was no substantial evidence to support the revocation. Defendant also argues that the sentences imposed following the revocation were excessive. After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant’s probation and ordering Defendant to serve his original sentences in confinement. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Davis
The Petitioner, Christopher A. Davis, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. 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 failed to file his petition within the applicable statute of limitations, failed to assert a claim that is cognizable in a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and the statute of limitations should not be tolled. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Chi-Choi Wong
The appellant, Joseph Chi-Choi Wong, was convicted by a jury on three counts of promoting prostitution and three counts of money laundering. As a result, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four (24) years. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's decision to admit certain evidence that was found in the appellant's apartment; (2) the trial court's failure to dismiss the indictment due to the asserted unconstitutionality of the Tennessee prostitution and money laundering statutes; (3) the trial court's failure to sever the prostitution counts from the money laundering counts; (4) the trial court's failure to suppress the evidence procured from the appellant's apartment as a result of the search warrant; (5) the trial court's imposition of an excessive sentence; and (6) the trial court's failure to mitigate the appellant's sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |