| Suzette Marie Elder vs. Sidney Lee Elder
M1998-00935-COA-R3-CV
This appeal involves a post-divorce custody dispute precipitated by the custodial parent's decision to accept a job in Texas. The custodial parent requested the Circuit Court for Franklin County to permit the parties' children to accompany him to Texas and to adjust the visitation arrangements accordingly. The non-custodial parent responded by requesting the trial court to change custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court declined to change the existing custody arrangement and permitted the custodial parent to move to Texas. On this appeal, the non-custodial parent takes issue with both the denial of her petition to change custody and the approval of the custodial parent's move to Texas. We have determined that the record supports both of these decisions and, therefore, affirm the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:J. Curtis Smith |
Franklin County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| State vs. Michael Elvis Green
W2001-00455-CCA-R3-CD
A Hardeman County jury found the defendant guilty of rape. Four issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant a continuance; (3) whether evidence of the defendant's escape from jail was improperly admitted; and (4) whether the trial court should have charged the jury as to sexual battery, statutory rape, and Class B misdemeanor assault as lesser-included offenses of rape. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Originating Judge:Jon Kerry Blackwood |
Hardeman County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Julia Leach Bryan vs. James Leach
M1998-00922-COA-R3-CV
This case involves post-divorce disputes over alimony and child support and issues of contempt of court. The father commenced this appeal after the trial court declined to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and awarded the mother more than $50,000 in child support arrearages and, later, found the father in contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 per day until all judgments were paid to the mother. On appeal, the father argues that his alimony obligation should have terminated or decreased, that a portion of his child support payments should be placed in trust for the benefit of the children, and that the trial court erred by fining him for contempt. We affirm the trial court's orders but modify the fine imposed upon the father.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Maury County | Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | |
| Dpt. Human Services vs. Whaley
03A01-9809-JV-00272
|
Court of Appeals | 04/15/99 | ||
| State vs. Phillip Todd Swords
03C01-9807-CR-00239
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/14/99 | |
| State vs. Sharon Marie Shell
03C01-9803-CR-00119
Originating Judge:Stephen M. Bevil |
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/14/99 | |
| Essie M. Butler v. Emerson Motor Co .
02S01-9805-CH-00045
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show she was entitled to compensation because of an alleged back injury.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The facts in this case are reasonably simple. The plaintiff, age 49, had been working for the defendant for 25 years. Several years prior to 1995 she injured her back at work. This injury is more historical than significant in the case before us. In January 1995, the plaintiff was working at a lathe, putting machine parts on the lathe and turning them. She began to experience pain in her back. She testified this was caused by having to twist her body side to side or back and forth in doing the work. Ultimately, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors and had several diagnostic tests and various treatments done. The most significant treatment was done by Dr. Dan Spengler, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the plaintiff as having instability of motion at the L4-5 section of her spine with some pinching of the nerve. Dr. Spengler was of the opinion that the cause of this problem was a degenerative process in a person of the plaintiff's age. He was of the opinion the plaintiff's work did not cause the problem. 1 The plaintiff also sued for carpal tunnel syndrome and was found to be entitled to compensation. That matter is not raised in this appeal. 2
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. George E. Ellis, |
Gibson County | Workers Compensation Panel | 04/14/99 | |
| State vs. Anthony Bonam
02C01-9804-CR-00109
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
02A01-9807-CV-00179
Originating Judge:Robert L. Childers |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. Jamell Richmond
02C01-9806-CR-00198
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
02A01-9803-CV-00065
Originating Judge:George H. Brown |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. John Greer
02C01-9806-CR-00167
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| State vs. Bobby Dale Franklin, Sr.
03C01-9804-CR-00129
Originating Judge:James E. Beckner |
Greene County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/13/99 | |
| Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185
|
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| King vs. State
03S01-9801-CR-00001
|
Knox County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
|
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| Lovell Lightner vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00277
|
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/12/99 | |
| Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Originating Judge:Jim T. Hamilton |
Wayne County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| Conister Trust v. Boating Corp. of America & Villas-Afloat
M1998-00949-COA-R3-CV
The buyer of three boats that were to be built pursuant to specific instructions defaulted on payment for the second and third boats by failing to pay the entire purchase price of the boats. The seller resold the two boats and recovered its damages caused by the buyer's breach. A creditor of the buyer, who furnished funds for the purchase of the first two boats, sought the excess proceeds from the sale of the second boat asserting that it had an unperfected security interest. Because the buyer did not attain rights in the collateral sufficient to meet the requirements for attachment of a security interest, the creditor is not entitled to distribution of the proceeds under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead, the rights of the buyer and seller are governed by Article 2. The creditor was entitled to assert the buyer's right to restitution of partial payments, and the seller was entitled to recover its damages from the resale of the two boats. The seller also had a right of setoff which it exercised to recover losses on the third boat from moneys realized in the sale of the second boat. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Tom E. Gray |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Small
03S01-9804-CR-00038
|
Knox County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053
|
Henry County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Originating Judge:Judge Julian P. Guinn |
Henry County | Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | |
| State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Originating Judge:Jane W. Wheatcraft |
Supreme Court | 04/12/99 | ||
| Harold David Jones vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9805-CC-00222
Petitioner, Harold David Jones, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Robertson County. Previously, he entered a nolo contendere plea to second degree murder and received a Range II sentence of 35 years. The following issues are presented for our review: 1. whether the petition was filed within the applicable statute oflimitations; and
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Originating Judge:Judge John H. Gasaway, III |
Robertson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 04/08/99 | |
| Remington Investments, Inc., v. Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth Obenauf
01A01-9809-CH-00512
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the trial court domesticating a Connecticut judgment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-6-101 et seq. against both defendants. I. The Connecticut Action In September 1990, Connecticut Savings Bank brought suit in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut against Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth H. Obenauf on a promissory note in the amount of $34,000, executed by Ronald S. Obenauf and dated March 27, 1990. Plaintiff alleged that it was the current holder of the promissory note and that Ronald S. Obenauf had failed to make monthly payments in accordance therewith. The bank demanded judgment of the amount of the promissory note together with nterest and costs. The bank further sought fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, asserting that plaintiff had been harmed by the failure of the defendant to make payment on the promissory note.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge:Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III |
Rutherford County | Court of Appeals | 04/07/99 |
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS
Please enter some keywords to search.