The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Tony Dale Crass, Defendant, with driving under the influence (DUI), DUI per se, and possession of a firearm while under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the State did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that video evidence of Defendant’s driving was erased and deleted as a result of a malfunctioning recording system in Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) Trooper Joey Story’s patrol car. The trial court concluded that the loss of video evidence constituted a violation of the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence recognized in State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and deprived Defendant of the right to a fair trial. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the indictment, and the State appealed. We conclude that the video was not lost or destroyed by the State, (2) that a Ferguson violation is not applicable to a suppression hearing based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a traffic stop, (3) that the trial court misapplied the “degree of negligence” Ferguson factor by equating perceived public policy decisions on the part of the State to negligence, and (4) that Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected without dismissal of the indictment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings. |
||||
Mina Woods and Robert Woods v. World Truck Transfer, Inc. and Edward J. Seigham
M1997-00068-COA-R3-CV
This appeal involves a personal injury action that was dismissed because the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Davidson County refused to accept and file a summons that had not been prepared on an original form provided by the clerk. By the time the plaintiff provided another summons acceptable to the clerk, the time for filing the complaint and the summons had elapsed. Accordingly, on motion of one of the defendants, the Circuit Court for Davidson County dismissed the personal injury claim because it was time-barred. We have determined that the clerk’s office exceeded its authority when it declined to accept and file the summons and, therefore, that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing the personal injury claims and remand the case for further proceedings.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Barbara N. Haynes |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. John R. Farner, Jr.
E1999-00491-SC-R11-CD
The State of Tennessee has filed a petition to rehear asking this Court to reconsider certain
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Originating Judge:Judge R. Jerry Beck |
Sullivan County | Supreme Court | ||
April Wallace, Vickie Guinn, et al., v. National Bank of Commerce, et al.
02S01-9509-CV-00074
This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court found that the
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Originating Judge:Judge James M. Tharpe |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | ||
Knight vs. Knight
01A01-9710-CV-00609
|
Court of Criminal Appeals | |||
Johnny L. Butler, v. State of Tennessee
02C01-9509-CR-00289
The petitioner, who is serving a sentence for a federal court conviction, has filed two petitions attacking prior state convictions which were used to enhance the sentence for the federal conviction. These two petitions, called petitions for the writ of coram nobis or for habeas corpus, were dismissed by the trial court without a hearing on the basis that they were actually petitions for post-conviction relief and barred by the statute of limitations. We agree with the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Originating Judge:Judge W. Fred Axley |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Zoey O. Et Al.
E2022-00500-COA-R3-PT
Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights as to her two oldest
Authoring Judge: Judge Jeffrey Usman
Originating Judge:Judge Timothy E. Irwin |
Court of Appeals | |||
Jaselyn Grant v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01453-CCA-R3-PC
The petitioner, Jaselyn Grant, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief,
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Chris Craft |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Kristina Cole v. State of Tennessee
W2022-01245-CCA-R3-PC
Petitioner, Kristina Cole, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from her Shelby
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge J. Robert Carter, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
The petitioner, Denver Joe McMath, Jr., appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
||||
Robert L. Delaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
01S01-9808-CH-00144
This Court has been appointed by the Governor to decide the case of Delaney v. Thompson, et al., in which the plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the uniquely statutory merit selection system for appellate judges called the Tennessee Plan. Rather than contend with the constitutional issues, the majority, deciding this case by statutory construction, utilizes a construction which reflects neither the meaning of the statute nor the positions of the parties. In doing so, the majority opinion neither clarifies issues of importance to the electorate and judiciary, nor discourages future litigation on the same issues.
Authoring Judge: Special Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Arnold
Originating Judge:Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle |
Supreme Court | |||
Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She argues that the trial court erred in holding that clear and convincing evidence established that she engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to her incarceration and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both of the trial court’s findings. We affirm. |
Crockett County | Court of Appeals | ||
Sarah Berl v. Thomas Berl
M2023-00558-COA-R3-CV
This appeal stems from a post-divorce custody modification in which the father sought increased parenting time with his minor daughter, I.B. The trial court agreed with the father that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that a modification of the father’s parenting time was warranted. The trial court also awarded the father $15,000.00, or roughly half, of his attorney’s fees incurred in the trial court proceedings. The mother appeals the trial court’s decision. Because the father was, for the most part, the prevailing party at trial and proceeded in good faith, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the father a portion of his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s ruling as to attorney’s fees. However, we vacate the portion of the trial court’s final judgment placing a price cap on the minor child’s therapy fees. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified. Finally, we decline to award either party their attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.
Authoring Judge: Judge Kristi M. Davis
Originating Judge:Judge Deanna B. Johnson |
Williamson County | Court of Appeals | ||
Alton F. Dixon v. Nike, Inc.
02A01-9702-CH-00049
Plaintiff, Alton F. Dixon, appeals the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Nike, Inc. Nike is a manufacturer of sporting goods, footwear, and apparel, and Dixon was an at-will employee of Nike. Nike encourages its employees to actively participate in improving their work environment and in implementing ideas for new products on the market 2 through a program called “I Got It.” The program invites Nike’s employees to submit ideas that “eliminate waste, improve the way we work, increase productivity, prevent accidents, save time, money, or energy.” Employees can also submit ideas for new products or inventions. In a weekly bulletin for employees, Nike stated, “If what you are suggesting is an idea for a new product or invention, to protect you and NIKE, a letter of understanding will be sent for your signature stating, in essence, that NIKE will not use your product idea until a written contract is negotiated and signed.”
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Originating Judge:Chancellor Neal Small |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | ||
Steven Totty v. The Tennessee Department of Correction and the State of Tennessee
01A01-9504-CV-00139
This appeal involves a state prisoner’s efforts to enforce a plea bargain agreement. The prisoner filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in theCircuit Court for Davidson County after the Department of Correction refused to release him in accordance with his understanding of the agreement. The trial court granted the department’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the prisoner has appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition because it fails to state a claim upon which relief pursuant to a common-law writ of certiorari can be granted.1
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Walter C. Kurtz |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | ||
Tamara E. Lowe, Administrator of the Estate of Terry Allen Lowe, Deceased, v. Gransville Simpson, and wife, Judy Simpson
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
This is a wrongful death action. On April 28, 1998, Cynthia Low Armes ("Sister"), the sister of the late Terry Allen Lowe ("decedent"), instituted this action against Granville Simpson ("Granville") and his wife, Judy Simpson ("Judy"), (collectively, "the Simpsons"), alleging that the Simpsons were negligent in allowing three men, including Granville, to go armed on the Simpson's premises on December 10, 1995, and that their negligence directly contributed to the shooting death of the decedent. The trial court granted the Simpsons summary judgment on the ground that the complain was not filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Sister appeals, raising the following issue for our consideration: Did the trial court err in holding that Sister was aware of the injury and the cause of action on December 10, 1995, and therefore her action was barred by the statute of limitations?
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr. |
Morgan County | Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Klowii W., Et Al.
E2022-01789-COA-R3-PT
This is a parental rights termination case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney, C.J.
Originating Judge:Judge Timothy E. Irwin |
Knox County | Court of Appeals | ||
M2001-01866-CCA-R3-DD
M2001-01866-CCA-R3-DD
|
Supreme Court | |||
Cedric Dickerson (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life without the possibility of parole for his first degree felony murder conviction and eleven years for his aggravated robbery conviction and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. See State v. Cedric Dickerson, No. 02C01-9802-CR-00051, 1999 WL 74213, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 1999). The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following a post-conviction hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that “the Eighth Amendment should prohibit life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.” Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision denying relief. |
||||
John Doe v. Jane Doe
M2003-01142-SC-S25-BP
The petitioner, an attorney identified as John Doe, filed a petition for contempt alleging violations by the respondent, an attorney identified as Jane Doe, of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court directed the parties to address as a threshold matter the constitutionality of Rule 9, section 25. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Attorney General and amicus curiae, and analyzing the applicable law, we hold that section 25 of Rule 9 violates free speech protections of Article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further conclude that sanctions for criminal contempt are not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the petition for contempt is denied.
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
|
Jackson County | Supreme Court | ||
This is a conservatorship case. Appellee hospital filed a petition for appointment of an expedited limited healthcare fiduciary for the Appellant patient because the hospital believed that Appellant could not be safely discharged without assistance. The trial court determined that the appointment of a limited healthcare fiduciary was appropriate and in the Appellant’s best interest. The trial court then granted Appellee’s motion to amend its petition to include the appointment of a conservator. The trial court found that Appellant is an individual with disabilities, and further found that it is in the Appellant’s best interest to have a conservator appointed. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |