The defendant, Lynn L. Davis, pled guilty to robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. In his appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply mitigating factors and in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hickman
Court of Criminal Appeals
Robert Davidson v. Charles Lindsey W2000-02891-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
In this personal injury case, we address whether the trial judge properly performed his duties as thirteenth juror in denying the appellees' motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals found that based on statements made by the trial judge during the trial, at the hearing for the motion for new trial, and at the hearing to set bond and stay execution of the judgment, there was "an appearance of bias" against two of the defendants due to their failure to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs. As a result, the Court of Appeals found that the trial judge could not have properly discharged his duty as thirteenth juror. We reverse. There is no indication that the trial judge was biased against the defendants; instead, it is clear that the trial judge believed that the ultimate outcome was obvious from the outset, and that the bad facts and poor testimony of one of the defendants should have prompted a substantial settlement offer from the defendants. The record indicates that the trial judge considered the issues in the case and explicitly approved the jury's apportionment of fault and the amount of damages awarded. Additionally, acting in our discretion under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(b), we address the other issues raised on appeal by the appellees, and find that they are without merit. As such, we reinstate the judgment of the trial judge approving the jury's verdict.
Henry
Supreme Court
2002-02685-COA-R3-CV 2002-02685-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
Emma Johnson vs. Knox County Board of Education E2003-00248-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Plaintiff Johnson slipped and fell where water was in school's hallway. Defendants were granted Judgment on ground they had no notice of condition of hallway. We reverse and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Victoria Henry v. Timothy Goins M2000-02663-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
The trial court entered an Order of Dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order was entered with prejudice and without notice to the parties. After the trial court reinstated Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 60.02"), Plaintiffs prevailed on the merits. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in setting aside the Order of Dismissal and vacated the judgment in Plaintiffs' favor. We granted permission to appeal. Because Plaintiffs presented adequate grounds for relief under Rule 60.02, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating their claims. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court erred in setting aside the Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, we reinstate the jury verdict, and we remand this cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Davidson
Supreme Court
Vickie Nash vs. Thomas Nash E2002-01597-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William K. Swann
This appeal of a judgment for divorce entered by the Knox County Circuit Court questions whether the Trial Court erred in its classification and division of a 401(k) retirement account and in its award of rehabilitative alimony. We affirm in part, modify in part and remand.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Sam Weaver vs. Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals E2002-02000-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
Sam C. Weaver filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking an order of the trial court setting aside the decision of the Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals ("the BZA") granting Crown Communications, Inc., and BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc., dba Cingular Wireless, (collectively "the cellular companies") permission to construct a 195-foot cellular tower on property owned by one of Weaver's neighbors. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Lisa Kay Rogers vs. Richard Barrett Rogers E2002-02300-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples
In this divorce action, the trial court divided marital property and awarded child support and rehabilitative alimony. Both parties raise issues on appeal. We affirm, as modified.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Mitch Stooksbury vs. American National Property E2002-02385-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Mitch and Gina Stooksbury ("Plaintiffs") purchased homeowners insurance from American National Property and Casualty Company ("Defendant"). After Plaintiffs' home was destroyed by fire, they were informed by Defendant that their insurance policy had been cancelled prior to the date of loss because of an underwriting risk arising from missing railing on a deck. Defendant claimed to have mailed a cancellation notice and refund check to Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the policy. Plaintiffs denied receiving the cancellation notice or refund check. A jury concluded Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it mailed the cancellation notice to Plaintiffs. The jury also concluded Defendant acted unfairly and in bad faith, and that Defendant's failure to pay the loss was through fraudulent and deceptive practices. The Trial Court entered a judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of $92,750, for damages pursuant to the insurance contract, plus prejudgment interest on that $92,750. The Trial Court also assessed a 25% bad faith penalty and an additional 5% for punitive damages. Both parties appeal. We affirm the judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of $92,750 and the prejudgment interest awarded on that $92,750. The bad faith penalty and award of punitive damages is reversed.
Anderson
Court of Appeals
E.C. Mitchell v. Larry Mitchell M2001-01609-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
This case comes before the Court upon consideration of the record and Appellant's brief pursuant to this Court's order filed on April 3, 2002. Appellant, Evalina Casey Cheadle Mitchell, hereinafter referred to as the Mother, seeks relief from the trial court's sua sponte order requiring the parties to mediate certain issues, requiring the minor children to attend periodic counseling and requiring the parties to submit to counseling themselves. We reverse the trial court's order and remand this case for a full hearing consistent with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-401, et seq.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Paul Seibers v. Melissa Cunnningham M2002-02782-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This appeal stems from a parental dispute over the custody of a 16-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. Their father filed suit in the DeKalb County Juvenile Court seeking to remove the children from their mother's custody because they were dependent and neglected. The juvenile court granted the father custody of his son but decided that his daughter should remain with her maternal grandmother in the custody of the Department of Children's Services. The father pursued a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for DeKalb County. After the children's mother moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was untimely, the father filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) motion seeking relief from his untimely notice of appeal. The circuit court granted the father the requested relief and, following a bench trial, granted the father custody of both children. The mother asserts on this appeal that the circuit court lacked authority to grant the father relief from his untimely notice of appeal and, in the alternative, that the father was not entitled to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) relief for excusable neglect. We have determined that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the father's Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) motion and, therefore, that the father's appeal to the circuit court should have been dismissed because it was untimely.
The pro se appellant appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Finding that summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
Bledsoe
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Julia M. Ward E2002-01381-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz
The Defendant, a teacher, was indicted for three counts of assault against one of her students. She offered to enter a plea of nolo contendere on Count II in exchange for judicial diversion and the dismissal of the remaining two counts. The State rejected the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere and maintained that the Defendant would have to plead guilty in order to receive judicial diversion. The Defendant refused the offer and requested pretrial diversion. The State denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Knox County Criminal Court. The trial court denied the petition. The trial court then filed an order permitting interlocutory appeal to this Court. This Court granted the Defendant's application for interlocutory review. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the State abused its discretion by denying the Defendant pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
Dept of Children's Services vs. RB E2002-01950-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: John W. Walton
Trial Court terminated father's parental rights for failure to support child. On appeal, we affirm.
Carter
Court of Appeals
KHB Holdings vs. Mark Duncan E2002-02062-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
KHB Holdings, Inc. ("KHB") sued Mark A. Duncan and Tina L. Duncan ("the Duncans"), alleging that the Duncans had terminated KHB's contract to construct a residence for them. The trial court found that KHB's corporate charter had been revoked two years prior to the date on which KHB ostensibly contracted with the Duncans; denied KHB's motion to substitute its sole shareholder, Kenneth H. Boyd ("Boyd"), for the corporation; and held that KHB had failed to establish it was entitled to recover based upon a theory of quantum meruit. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Bankers Trust y vs. Timothy Collins E2002-02109-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this declaratory judgment action, the Trial Court held that recorded trust deeds and notes had priority over unrecorded trust deeds and notes and dismissed the action. We affirm.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Willis Edwards vs. Katherine Heckmann E2002-02292-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This appeal involves a boundary line dispute between Willis Edwards and Wendall Edwards ("Plaintiffs") and Katherine and Gregory Heckmann ("Defendants"). Plaintiffs and Defendants presented proof from their respective surveyors regarding the appropriate boundary line for the disputed area of land. The surveyors testified in detail regarding the natural and artificial landmarks, etc., they relied upon in arriving at their differing conclusions. The Trial Court concluded Defendants' surveyor was accurate and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Claiborne
Court of Appeals
In The Matter of : Estate of J.C. Qeener E2002-02311-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: William H. Russell
Trial Court entered Judgments against Estate for claimants on theories of resulting and/or constructive trusts, finding decedent's intent from a draft copy of Will never executed. On appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Loudon
Court of Appeals
Gloria Chambliss vs. DennisStohler E2002-02413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Gloria Jean Chambliss saw Dennis L. Stohler, M.D. ("Defendant") for medical care and treatment for problems related to her right knee. Ms. Chambliss was dissatisfied with the results of Defendant's treatment. Ms. Chambliss and her husband, Willie Chambliss ("Plaintiffs") sued Defendant for medical malpractice. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment and also a motion to allow the filing of an amended affidavit of Plaintiffs' expert. The Trial Court denied the motions to alter or amend. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Big Nine Productions vs. International Creative Management E2002-02452-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
DLLP, LLC, dba Big Nine Productions ("DLLP") sued International Creative Management, Inc., aka ICM ("ICM") and Rock On Tours, Inc. (collectively "the defendants") for damages and other relief arising out of the alleged failure of the defendants to follow through with a concert featuring the defendants' principal, a musical group known as the Moody Blues. The defendants moved the court to compel arbitration under an alleged agreement providing for arbitration in New York City. The trial court ordered arbitration, but decreed that it would be conducted in Chattanooga. The defendants appeal, arguing that the trial court was without authority to order arbitration other than in New York City. By way of a separate issue, the appellee, DLLP, contends that the trial court ordered "non-binding" arbitration and that it erred in doing so in the absence of the parties' consent, said consent being required by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 31, Sec. 3(d). It seeks an outright reversal of the court's order. We hold that the trial court ordered "binding" arbitration; that such arbitration was required under the terms of the parties' agreement; and that the trial court erred in failing to order that the arbitration would be conducted in New York City. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's order. As modified, the order is affirmed.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Fred Slaughter vs. Laura Slaughter & Daniel Crowe E2002-02477-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
The Trial Court gave Judgments for plaintiffs against defendants and cross-defendant Slaughter was given Judgments for compensatory and punitive damages against co-defendant Crowe and her deed to Crowe was voided. On appeal, we affirm all Judgments except for the Judgment for punitive damages which is remanded for trial on damages.
Petitioner, Melvin E. Beard, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's best interest plea to the charge of sale and delivery of cocaine, that his best interest plea was involuntary, and that the factual basis presented by the State was insufficient to support his plea. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings of fact. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Terrance W. Price, pled guilty to fifteen counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a Class C felony. He pled guilty reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The certified question of law on appeal is whether Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-901, - 903, Money Laundering Act of 1996, violates Article XI, Section 8 or Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution by exempting from its application violation of gambling laws, found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-501 et seq. After a careful review, we conclude that the statutes do not violate the Tennessee Constitution, and therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court.
