Please enter some keywords to search.
| State vs. Michael Ware
02C01-9610-CR-00354
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| State of Tennessee Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
This is an appeal by respondents/appellants, Stanley Fetterolf and Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, from a decision of the Putnam County Juvenile Court terminating their parental rights. Ms. Ford argues petitioner/appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Human Services (“Department”), filed its petition for termination of parental rights in the wrong court and contends the proper venue was the Overton County Juvenile Court which had handled the initial custody proceedings.1 The pertinent facts are as follows.
Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart
Originating Judge:Judge John Hudson |
Putnam County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111
|
Hamilton County | Supreme Court | 11/14/97 | |
| Jones vs. Rudolph
01A01-9611-CH-00513
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137
|
Court of 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 | |
| 03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111
|
Hamilton County | Court of Appeals | 11/14/97 | |
| 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 | |
| State vs. David Hassell
02C01-9611-CR-00396
Originating Judge:W. Fred Axley |
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 | ||
| 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
|
Jefferson 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 | |
| X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Morgan County | Court of Appeals | 11/13/97 | |
| Raymond Morris vs. Voil Morris
02A01-9610-CH-00236
Originating Judge:George R. Ellis |
Gibson County | Court of Appeals | 11/12/97 | |
| Lasalle Dudley vs. Raye Dudley
02A01-9705-CH-00104
|
Shelby County | Court of Appeals | 11/12/97 | |
| State vs. Michael Walton
01C01-9509-CR-00290
Originating Judge:Seth W. Norman |
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/12/97 | |
| Terry Phelps vs. State
01C01-9610-CC-00451
Originating Judge:W. Charles Lee |
Lincoln County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/12/97 | |
| Jewell Maness vs. Estate of Acie Maness
02A01-9611-CH-00270
Originating Judge:Joe C. Morris |
Henderson County | Court of Appeals | 11/12/97 | |
| Shirley Shelburne v. Frontier Health
E2000-02551-SC-R11-CV
Plaintiff, both individually and as next friend of her minor son, brought suit against Carter County, Frontier Health, and Woodridge Hospital for the wrongful death of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to Frontier and Woodridge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Frontier and Woodridge could not be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of their employee because he was entitled to immunity as a state employee. We granted review to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in light of our decision in Johnson v. LeBonheur Children's Medical Center, 74 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. 2002). We hold that Johnson governs the present case and that Frontier and Woodridge are not immune from liability for the acts or omissions of their immune employee. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate.
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Originating Judge:Thomas J. Seeley, Jr. |
Carter County | Supreme Court | 11/12/97 | |
| Jimmy R. Turner v. Travelers Insurance
01S01-9610-CV-00203
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. |
Sequatchie County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/10/97 | |
| Evans & Arnold vs. Board of Paroles, et. al.
01S01-9610-CH-00210
|
Davidson County | Supreme Court | 11/10/97 | |
| 01C01-9510-CR-00347
01C01-9510-CR-00347
Originating Judge:Jerry Scott |
Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/10/97 | ||
| J. C. Mcdowell v. United Technologies/Carrier Corp.
01S01-9703-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. This complaint in Chancery was filed November 9, 1995 seeking benefits for a back injury which the plaintiff alleged he suffered on March 14, 1995 while attempting to move a heavy tank. The employer defendant answered in course, alleging that the plaintiff had a degenerative back condition of many years duration and denying the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury as alleged or that it had notice of any injury. The trial judge referred the case to the Clerk and Master pursuant to RULE 53, TENN. R. CIV. P.1 A judgment was entered finding that the plaintiff sustained a compensable injury on March 14, 1995 resulting in a 3 percent permanent partial disability to his whole body, and benef its were awarded accordingly. The defendant appeals and presents the issue of whether the evidence preponderates against the finding of a compensable injury. We hold that it does not for reasons hereafter recited, and therefore affirm the judgment. The plaintiff is 52 years old and has been employed at Carrier since 1972. He had three prior back surgeries in 1975, 1976, and 1985. On March 14, 1995, while working on a chiller tank, he twisted his body, and, as he stated, "I hurt myself." He did not report for work the following day, but on March 16, 1995, he went with a shop steward to see Joel Holt, the Safety Director. He testified that he reported to Holt that he had injured his back and requested some time off. He saw his family physician who said the pain was not work related. In course, he was referred to Dr. George Lien, a neurosurgeon who performed surgery on May 7, 1995. The plaintiff returned to work on August 23, 1995 with restrictions. 1A Spec ial Maste r may b e appo inted in any ca se, and his/her du ties ma y be particula rized. W e ass um e the Clerk and M aste r was appo inted as S pec ial Ma ster to hear and r epo rt the t estim ony, with recommendation, but there is no Appointing Order in the record. There are two relevant documents in the record. The first such is a Finding of Fact signed by the trial judge. The second is an Order reciting that "the cause came on to be heard before the Honorable Charles D. Haston, Judge., etc. who referred the matter to J. Richard McGregor, Special Master. Thereafter, the court . . . filed a finding of fact . . . which is incorporated herein . . ." This Order [i.e. Judgment] is signed, not by the trial judge, but by J. Richard McGregor. "In the absence of the Judge, J. Richard Mc Gregor, sitting as Chancellor pro tem ." So far as the record reveals the Spe cial Master filed no repo rt, and the trial judge thus made findings o f fact without hearing any proof. The anomaly continues: the Special Master, as Judge Pro Tem, also entered the final judgment, thereby approbating his prior action. The parties make no issue of this `unusual' procedure, and we therefore treat the case as one heard in compliance with RULE 53.4. 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Charles D. Haston, |
Warren County | Workers Compensation Panel | 11/10/97 |