APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a case involving a petition for appointment of conservator and a request for attorney’s fees by the non-petitioning spouse of the ward. The husband and wife were married, but lived apart.  The husband lived with his daughter from a previous marriage. Unknown by the husband’s children, he continued to see and financially support his estranged wife. The husband suffered from bipolar disorder requiring several hospitalizations. The husband, during a manic period, emptied his 401K account and purchased several vehicles and properties. The husband’s daughter petitioned the court for appointment of a conservatorship for her father. The court found that the husband was disabled, and appointed the daughter as the conservator over his person and a third-party attorney as the conservator over his finances. The wife was represented by counsel during the proceedings. The court ordered the conservator to pay the wife spousal support in the amount of $2,000 a month out of the husband’s $150,000 estate. The wife then petitioned the court for an award of her attorney’s fees, which the probate court denied. Wife appeals, arguing that the lower court has the statutory authority pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-3-109 to include in the award of financial support her attorney’s fees. We affirm.

Landowners who hired an attorney to defend their property rights brought suit for legal malpractice
against that attorney related to his representation in the litigation over disputed property. The
defendant attorney filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the one-year statute of
limitations for malpractice claims had passed before the landowners filed their suit against him. The trial court granted the attorney’s motion. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendant attorney as to any allegations of delay in seeking an injunction against a trespassing neighbor, since the landowners had complained about the delay to several official bodies over two and a half years before they filed their complaint against their attorney. However, we reverse the trial court as to any alleged acts of legal malpractice that occurred within one year of the filing of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

This is a common-law retaliatory discharge case. Plaintiff/Appellant alleged that she was wrongfully discharged from her employment with Defendant/Appellee. Defendant/Appellee moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff/Appellant appeals. We affirm.

The Defendant, Derrick Settles, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of possession of over .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell. The jury sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for one murder conviction, and the trial court ordered a consecutive life sentence for the other. The trial court also merged the possession offenses into a single conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for that conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of his apartment and his confession because he lacked the intellectual capacity to validly consent to the search or effectively waive the rights guaranteed him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Michael Ware, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
 

The Petitioner, Michael W. Smith, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The defendants’ filings in this case clearly establish that Teri Crawford does not have a cause of action for intentional interference with the dead body of her brother, Robert H. Crawford. That cause of action belonged to Mr. Crawford’s widow, to the exclusion of all others. Furthermore, in my opinion, the record before us negates Ms. Crawford’s alleged causes of action against all defendants except those asserted against the individuals and entities directly associated with the operation of the Tri-State Crematory (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Tri-State Defendants”). As to these latter individuals and entities, I believe the defendants’ filings fail to negate Ms. Crawford’s three causes of action for (1) intentional, (2) reckless, and (3) negligent infliction of mental distress. Therefore, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court was correct in dismissing Ms. Crawford’s complaint with respect to these “infliction of mental distress” theories.

This is an appeal from three consolidated lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh, Marsh’s former business, Tri-State Crematory, and Buckner-Rush Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs are relatives and a girlfriend of three deceased individuals whose bodies were sent by Buckner-Rush Funeral Home to Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The bodies were not cremated and either were dumped or buried by Marsh on the Tri-State premises. The Trial Court dismissed all three lawsuits after holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring any of the tort, contract, or statutory claims at issue. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This appeal involves one of numerous civil lawsuits filed against T. Ray Brent Marsh and his former business, Tri-State Crematory, Inc., and others. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and siblings of Robert H. Crawford, Jr., whose body was sent to the Tri-State Crematory for cremation. The body, however, was not cremated and to this day the plaintiffs do not know what happened to their loved ones’ body. The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit after finding that the decedent’s surviving spouse was the only person with standing to bring the various tort claims asserted by the plaintiffs. The decedent’s sister, Teri Crawford, appeals that determination. We affirm.

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in the case of Robert H. Crawford, Sr. et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc. et al., No. E2006-00987-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed November 21, 2007), I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority opinion as affirms the dismissal of the complaints filed by Rondal D. Akers, Jr., Lucinda Akers, Donna Burns, Susan Hall, Doyle Harden, Ricky Harden, Sandra Fogle, Mollie C. Denton, and Elaine Waldron, against the individuals and entities directly associated with the operation of Tri-State Crematory, as to the claims in those complaints alleging outrageous conduct/infliction of emotional distress. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim of negligent entrustment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Torian Benson,1 appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

I am in complete agreement with the court’s conclusions that the judgment in this case must be reversed because the trial court refused to give an instruction warranted by the facts and that the evidence does not warrant an award of punitive damages against either Graham Brothers Entertainment of Nashville or Tennessee Protection Agency. Because this case must be retried, I write separately with regard to the admissibility of the evidence regarding Mr. Gangwer’s prior conviction.

The plaintiff was severely injured when the automobile he was driving was struck by a car driven by an impaired driver who was killed in the collision. The plaintiff’s suit named as defendants the estate of the deceased driver, the nightclub from which the driver departed immediately before the accident, and the company which provided security services to the bar. The jury declined to find the nightclub liable for serving alcoholic beverages, thereby making the only available basis for liability negligence in controlling the conduct of the deceased driver so as to prevent harm to others. The jury heard evidence that employees of the club and the security company had made efforts, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the driver from leaving the premises in an intoxicated state. The jury found the plaintiff’s damages resulted from negligence and amounted to over $1,162,000. They allocated 30% of the fault to the deceased driver, 30% to the security company, and 40% to the club’s owner.  The jury also awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million against the club’s owner and $500,000 against the security company. The club owner appealed. Because the jury was not instructed as to the conditions for liability under an assumed, rather than imposed, duty of care as established in Section 324A of the Restatement of Torts, we must reverse the verdict and judgment thereon. For separate and independent reasons, we reverse the award of punitive damages, because the conduct of the bar’s personnel in attempting to prevent its adult customer from driving while impaired did not reach the level of recklessness necessary to sustain a punitive award. Additionally, we find no error in evidentiary rulings or other procedures in the trial court that justify reversal.

The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition
for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

In this breach of construction contract suit, the trial court gave judgment in favor of plaintiff homeowner, and contractor defendant has appealed. We affirm.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendants based on the ten-year statute of repose applicable to products liability actions codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-28-103. We granted Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory appeal with respect to whether the savings statute saves a products liability action that was filed within the products liability statutes of limitations and repose, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled within one year where the products liability statute of repose expired during the one-year savings period. We hold Plaintiff may rely on the savings statute to refile her action. Summary judgment in favor of Defendants is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

The defendant, John William Matkin, III, was convicted by a Sevier County Circuit Court jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to serve six years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court committed reversible error with respect to the jury instructions, and that he was improperly sentenced. Upon review, we hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Edward Ray Armstrong, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Dyer County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. In 2006, the Petitioner pled guilty as a Range I, standard offender to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to subpoena his medical records and to adequately prepare for trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed a petition for writ of certiorari after he was denied parole. The trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that it was not sworn to and did not state that it was the first application for a writ. We affirm.

The petitioner, Sean Williams, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which was denied by the post-conviction court following a hearing. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition and specifically contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a jury instruction for facilitation. After review, we conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective, and we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Darnell Lavelle Welch, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

This dispute arises from a premises liability action filed against Plaintiff property owner Union Realty Company. The trial court determined that Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company had an obligation to insure Union Realty as a named insured under a public liability contract of insurance issued to Defendant Family Dollar store. Family Dollar and Travelers appeal; we affirm in part, vacate in part, and reverse in part.

The defendant, Andreco Boone, appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly admitted a photo spread during the trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.