Rachel Jeanette Mccormick v. Yasuda Fire & Marine M1998-00162-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Gayden, J.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with the Tenn. Code Ann. Section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Appellant, Calsonic Yorozu Corporation (hereinafter "CYC") raises seven issues arguing that the trial court erred by (1) failing to find Plaintiff's claim was barred by Plaintiff's voluntary intoxication and willful disregard of safety procedures, (2) holding that part of Plaintiff's disability was due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, (3) not applying the "concurrent injury rule", (4) holding Plaintiff gave adequate notice of her bilateral carpal syndrome to Defendants, (5) awarding compensation for unauthorized medical treatment, (6) improperly ordering a lump sum award, and (7) entering its judgment contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the General Sessions Court Affirmed GAYDEN, J., in which BIRCH, J., and WEATHERFORD, SP. J., joined. Bruce Timothy Pirtle, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Calsonic Aeries Corporation, Inc. Frank D. Farrar and William J. Butler, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Rachel Jeanette McCormick. MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 19, 1996, Plaintiff filed a complaint for workers' compensation. In the complaint -2-
Warren
Workers Compensation Panel
Rebecca Day v. Travelers Insurance Company 03501-9808-CH-00096
Authoring Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frank V. Williams
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated _50-6-225 (e) (3) (1998 Supp.) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Trial Court, after considering all of the evidence, found the worker to lack credibility, and determined that she was not entitled to recover under the workers' compensation law, and after consideration of the entire record, we affirm the Trial Court's decision.
This appeal arises from an action for divorce filed by plaintiff-Wife in the Crockett County Chancery Court. Following defendant-Husband’s answer and counter-complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a consent order for support and other relief. The court entered an order granting divorce and approving the parties’ agreement. Subsequently, the court entered an order awarding Wife alimony in futuro and a significant amount of the marital assets. The court also found that stock in a corporation was a marital asset and included the stock in Husband’s award of marital assets. Husband appeals both the award of alimony and the court’s characterization of the corporation stock as a marital asset. Tenn.R.App.P. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
James M. Lane, Jr. appeals by permission of the trial and appellate courts. Indicted for two counts of aggravated perjury, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reverse the district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Because the prosecutor relied upon improper grounds for denying diversion, we reverse the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying diversion. We remand to the trial court with instructions that the prosecutor enter into a memorandum of understanding for pretrial diversion with the defendant.
Miltier, III vs. Miltier (Buhls) E1999-00887-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
Carter
Court of Appeals
D. A. Price vs. P. C. Price E1999-00102-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Blount
Court of Appeals
Grandstaff vs. Hawks M1998-00909-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.
Richardson vs. TDOC M1999-02796-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Ricky Lee Jenkins v. Heather Johnson M2001-02103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This appeal arises from the lower court's modification of a child custody arrangement. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and awarded primary residential custody to Father. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
White
Court of Appeals
State vs. Murriel Lee W1999-01094-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lee Moore
Dyer
Court of Criminal Appeals
Berryhill vs. Rhodes W1997-00167-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth A. Turner
Shelby
Supreme Court
Berryhill vs. Rhodes W1997-00167-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth A. Turner
Shelby
Supreme Court
Barnes vs. Goodyear W1997-00247-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
Tammy C. Powell vs. Charley Crisp, et al E1999-02539-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
This is a suit wherein Tammy C. Powell, formerly Bird, seeks custody of her minor children, Joshua Daniel Bird (DOB 2/2/86) and Cherish Richelle Bird (DOB 8/25/88), who are now in the custody of her parents. The Trial Court was of the opinion that the Court of Indian Offenses of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, located in Cherokee, North Carolina, the Court which initially awarded a divorce to Richard Bird and later granted custody of the children to the maternal grandparents, Charley and Peggy Crisp, had exclusive jurisdiction of any action seeking to change custody, and accordingly dismissed the petition. We affirm.
