Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Rebecca Warren
M2005-00830-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Calvin Kirkham et al.
M2005-00795-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Ronald R. Dunn, et al.
M2005-00824-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Rufus Reese et al.
M2005-00805-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Charles A. Deshler and Martha A. Deshler Joint Caring Trust et al.
M2005-00831-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Patricia G. Green
M2005-00796-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Charles Carter, et al.
M2005-00825-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Camilla Jean Palmer Revocable Trust
M2005-00789-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Linda Scott Webster
M2005-00818-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. David Smith et al.
M2005-00799-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. James R. Stephenson, et al.
M2005-00826-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Larry Law et al.
M2005-00790-COA-R3-CV
This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge C. L. Rogers |
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 02/24/06 | |
Carlos L. Rice v. David Mills, Warden
W2005-01800-CCA-R3-HC
The Petitioner, Carlos L. Rice, 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.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Judge Joseph H. Walker, III |
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/23/06 | |
Grover L. Dunigan v. State of Tennessee
E2005-01574-CCA-R3-PC
Petitioner, Grover L. Dunigan, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his conviction for second degree murder. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing on the grounds that the petition was time-barred. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that due process requires tolling the statute of limitations because his trial attorney never told him that the supreme court had denied his Rule 11 application. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the lower court properly dismissed the petition. Therefore, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Originating Judge:Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood |
Hamilton County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/23/06 | |
Robin Kuykendall v. Margaret Harper
E2005-01756-COA-R3-CV
Plaintiff sued for attorney's fees under contract of employment with defendant. The Trial Court awarded Judgment for fees. Both parties appealed. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Originating Judge:Judge Dale C. Workman |
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
Donald Jamison v. Harrell Ulrich, et al.
E2005-01153-COA-R3-CV
The issue presented in this case is whether the policemen and firemen's rule applies to an animal control officer who was bitten by a Doberman pinscher while performing the duties of his employment. The plaintiff, an animal control officer for the Chattanooga Police Department, was bitten when, in the course and scope of his employment, he attempted to take possession of the defendants' dog at their home. The plaintiff sued the defendants for compensatory damages, claiming that they were negligent in failing to warn him about the dangerous nature of the dog. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment upon its determination that the dog's owners owed no duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances pursuant to the policemen and firemen's rule which precludes police officers and firefighters from recovering for injuries arising out of risks peculiar to their employment. Upon review, we find that the dog's owners owed no duty of ordinary care to the animal control officer and therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Sharon G. Lee
Originating Judge:Judge W. Neil Thomas, III |
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
State of Tennessee v. Edna Phelps
W2005-00943-CCA-R3-CD
The defendant, Edna Phelps, was found guilty by a Madison County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years, all suspended except for eleven months and twenty-nine days with the balance to be served on intensive probation. On appeal, she argues the trial court erred in overruling her objections to certain questions asked by the State. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Originating Judge:Judge Roger A. Page |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Murphy
W2004-02899-CCA-R3-CD
The defendant, Steven Murphy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and two counts of theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. The trial court merged the first degree felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, for which the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, merged the two theft convictions, and sentenced the defendant to two years for the theft conviction, to be served concurrently with the life sentence without parole. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to allow hearsay statements of the victim into evidence, in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police, and in not instructing the jury on the adverse inference that could be drawn from the State’s failure to preserve the tape recording of the defendant’s statements. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Case No. 01-02751 to reflect the defendant’s conviction offense which was omitted.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Originating Judge:Judge Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Rice - Concurring and Dissenting
W2002-00471-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolopho A. Birch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 02/22/06 | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Rice
W2002-00471-SC-DDT-DD
A jury convicted the defendant, Charles Rice, of first degree murder. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (3) the murder was knowingly committed by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit a rape. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 204(i)(2), (5), (7) (1997). The jury also found that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the jury imposed a sentence of death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument,1 including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances found by the jury; (3) whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury that aggravated assault was a felony whose statutory elements involve violence to the person violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (4) whether the trial court’s restriction of the defendant’s cross-examination regarding Tony Evans’ prior conviction was harmless error; (5) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to sit at the defense counsel table; (6) whether the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation; and (7) whether the death sentence is comparatively proportionate and valid under the mandatory review provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)- (D) (2003). After a careful review of the record and relevant legal authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice William M. Barker
Originating Judge:Judge Joseph B. Dailey |
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 02/22/06 | |
Shields Mountain Property Owners Assocation, Inc., et al. v. Marion A. Teffeteller, et al.
E2005-00871-COA-R3-CV
Shields Mountain Property Owners Association, Inc., James R. Hall, and Terri L. Hall ("Plaintiffs") sued Marion A. Teffeteller and Charlene A. Teffeteller ("Defendants") seeking, among other things, to enforce restrictive covenants and enjoin Defendants from renting their property in Shields Mountain Estates for overnight vacation purposes. The Trial Court found and held, inter alia, that the covenants and restrictions at issue are applicable to the lots within Shields Mountain Estates including Defendants' lots; that Defendants' use of their lots for vacation rentals is a violation of the covenants and restrictions; and that Defendants are permanently enjoined from using property they own in Shields Mountain Estates for vacation rentals. Defendants appeal to this Court. We affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Originating Judge:Chancellor Telford E. Forgerty, Jr. |
Sevier County | Court of Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
Larry Grigsby v. University of Tennessee Medical Center, et al.
E2005-01099-COA-R3-CV
In this pro se medical malpractice case, the issues on appeal are whether the Appellant, Larry Grigsby, timely filed a notice of appeal as regards Defendants Dr. Paul A. Hatcher and Dr. E. Jay Mounger, and whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the University of Tennessee Medical Center ("UTMC"). We dismiss the appeal as to the Defendant doctors because we find that Mr. Grigsby did not comply with the jurisdictional requirement of Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), mandating the timely filing of a notice of appeal. We affirm summary judgment in UTMC's favor because Mr. Grigsby proceeded solely on the vicarious liability theory of respondeat superior, pursuant to his allegations that Drs. Hatcher and Mounger were agents and/or employees of UTMC. Because the alleged agents have been exonerated by an adjudication of non-liability, and therefore the alleged principal, UTMC, may not be held vicariously liable, we affirm summary judgment in favor of UTMC.
Authoring Judge: Judge Sharon G. Lee
Originating Judge:Judge Dale C. Workman |
Knox County | Court of Appeals | 02/22/06 | |
Mary Lee Dotson v. William Ennis Dotson
M2004-01141-COA-R3-CV
The husband appeals from a final decree of divorce challenging the award of divorce to the wife, the distribution of property, and the award of some property as alimony in solido to the wife. Because the husband raises factual issues and there is no transcript or statement of the evidence in the record, we must presume the record would have supported the factual findings of the trial court and accordingly affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge:Judge Jim T. Hamilton |
Maury County | Court of Appeals | 02/21/06 | |
David D. Orrick v. Bestway Trucking, Inc., et al.
M2003-02661-SC-WCM-CV
We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel erred in reducing the trial court's disability award from 33% to 3%. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we conclude that reduction of the trial court's award is appropriate. We further conclude, however, that we are unable to enter an appropriate award based on the record before us. We therefore remand to the trial court to enter an award consistent with this opinion.
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Chancellor Larry B. Stanley, Jr. |
Warren County | Supreme Court | 02/21/06 | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie R. Harris, Jr.
M2005-00241-CCA-R3-CD
A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Willie R. Harris, Jr., of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"). On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it admitted the results his blood alcohol content test into evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Originating Judge:Judge John W. Rollins |
Coffee County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 02/21/06 |