Please enter some keywords to search.
| Gary Mayes vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00137
Originating Judge:Thomas T. Woodall |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Kitsie Hendrix vs. James Cox, et al
02A01-9510-CV-00233
Originating Judge:Wyeth Chandler |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Originating Judge:Alex W. Darnell |
Robertson County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Holloway vs. Collier, Jr.
01A01-9704-CV-00153
Originating Judge:William B. Cain |
Maury County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111
|
Hamilton County | Supreme Court | 11/14/97 | |
| State vs. Robbie James
01C01-9609-CR-00388
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Originating Judge:William C. Koch |
Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | ||
| Thomas v. White
01A01-9610-CH-00479
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 01C01-9612-CC-00517
01C01-9612-CC-00517
|
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| State vs. Carlos Coman
02C01-9611-CC-00412
Originating Judge:Whit A. Lafon |
Madison County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Walter Wills vs. Ray Gill
02A01-9607-CH-00150
Originating Judge:D. J. Alissandratos |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 01C01-9612-CC-00519
01C01-9612-CC-00519
|
Williamson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Elsie Hopkins v. San Antonio Shoe, Inc.
01S01-9610-CH-00216
This Workers' Compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On May 2, 1994, the plaintiff, Elsie Hopkins, fell at work and injured her right shoulder. At trial and on appeal the defendant, San Antonio Shoe, Inc., accepted the claim as compensable. The trial court awarded thirty-five percent (35%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and assessed a bad faith penalty of twenty percent (2%) of the temporary total disability benefits due in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5- 6-225(k). The defendant employer contends on appeal the evidence preponderates against a vocational disability award of thirty-five percent (35%) permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and any finding of bad faith. The plaintiff requests an award of post judgment interest. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded the trial court's factual findings. Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1987). However, where the issues involve expert medical testimony which is contained in the record by deposition, as it is in this case, then all impressions of weight and credibility must be drawn from the contents of the depositions, and the reviewing court may draw its own impression as to weight and credibility from the contents of the depositions. Overman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672, 676-77 (Tenn. 1991). Plaintiff, Elsie Hopkins, is 48 years of age and has a tenth grade education . Her prior work history consists of repetitive work in the garment and shoe industry and she has no vocational training. She was employed by the defendant, San Antonio Shoe, Inc., for approximately 8 years when she injured her right shoulder on May 2, 1994. She reported the injury to her employer and was taken by her supervisor, Paul Darrow, to be seen by Dr. Jack Milam. Dr. Milam treated her conservatively and placed her arm in a sling for 6 to 8 weeks. 2
Authoring Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart, |
Franklin County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/14/97 | |
| O.W. Winsett v. Paul Orr and Mary Orr
02A01-9605-CH-00100
This case involves the alleged breach of an oral contract for the construction of a home. The trial court granted the builder summary judgment. Because some genuine issues of material fact exist, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Originating Judge:Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr. |
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Fetterolf vs. Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Originating Judge:John P. Hudson |
Putnam County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Harris Hughes Jr. vs. TN Seeds, et al
02A01-9611-CV-00290
Originating Judge:Dick Jerman, Jr. |
Haywood County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Wolf vs. The University of TN.
01A01-9611-CH-00514
Originating Judge:William M. Dender |
Franklin County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Stat e vs. Michael Moore
02C01-9705-CR-00180
Originating Judge:Bernie Weinman |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | 11/13/97 | ||
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Jefferson County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| State vs. Clifton Epps
02C01-9601-CR-00022
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| State vs. Nassel Brown
02C01-9606-CR-00187
Originating Judge:Bernie Weinman |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Morgan County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| Willie M. Nutt v. Angelica Uniform Group
01S01-9609-CH-00195
This Workers' Compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Willie M. Nutt, appeals the judgment of the trial court in dismissing her complaint as being barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Willie M. Nutt worked for the defendant, Angelica Uniform Group, from 1982 to 1989 when she quit due to pain in her shoulders and back. She then worked for Tennessee River for several months, but again had to quit due to the physical inability to do her job. In November 1989, she was advised by Dr. Howard Fuchs that her shoulder problems were work- related. With the encouragement of the plant manager, and the assurance of light duty, Ms. Nutt returned to work for Angelica Uniform in July, 199. She was able to handle small parts for a few days, but her shoulder symptoms returned when she was assigned to heavier work. She was terminated because she was unable to perform her job. Plaintiff filed suit on January 28, 1991, and alleged on or about July 31, 199, she became aware she had suffered an injury to her shoulders. The defendant answered and pled the statute of limitations as a defense. After a trial on October 2, 1994, the trial court took the matter under advisement and entered judgment on December 16, 1994, dismissing plaintiff's cause of action. The trial court found: The shoulder problems suffered by Ms. Nutt, however, were long standing problems and were not caused by a work-related injury during her brief period of employment at Angelica's plant in July of 199. The Court further finds that Ms. Nutt was aware of her shoulder problems and aware that those shoulder problems were work related several years before the complaint in this action filed. The statute of limitations applicable to her claims, therefore, expired prior to the filing of this action on January 28, 1991, and Ms. Nutt's action was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference 2
Authoring Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. William B. Cain |
Wayne County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/13/97 |