APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Please enter some keywords to search.
William Wesley Goad v. State of Tennessee

01S01-9509-CR-00169

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner, William Wesley Goad, was afforded his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial.
 

Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Judge Fred A. Kelly, III
Sumner County Supreme Court 12/02/96
Janice Holder v.Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission and George T. Lewis, III, Esq. in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission

01S01-9610-CH-00211

The petition to rehear is denied. ENTER this the 2nd day of December, 1996.
 

Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Davidson County Supreme Court 12/02/96
State of Tennessee v. John Michael Denton and William Douglas Brown v. State of Tennessee

01S01-9509-CC-00152

We granted review and consolidated these cases in order to consider the circumstances under which imposition of two convictions resulting from a "single" criminal act may violate the double jeopardy and du process clause of the state and federal constitutions in light of State v. Anthony, 817S.W. 2d299 (Tenn. 1991).

 

Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Judge Henry D. Bell
Davidson County Supreme Court 12/02/96
Debbie VanCleave, v. Matthew Markowski and Diane Markowski

02A01-9602-CV-00035

This matter appears appropriate for consideration pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the
Court of Appeals of Tennessee.

Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Originating Judge:Judge Whit A. Lafon
Madison County Court of Appeals 12/02/96
01A01-9608-CH-00363

01A01-9608-CH-00363
Court of Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9605-CH-00204

01A01-9605-CH-00204

Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Davidson County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
03C01-9601-CR-00001

03C01-9601-CR-00001

Originating Judge:Stephen M. Bevil
Hamilton County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01C01-9510-CR-00344

01C01-9510-CR-00344

Originating Judge:J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9608-CH-00365

01A01-9608-CH-00365
Court of Appeals 11/27/96
01C01-9506-CC-00178

01C01-9506-CC-00178

Originating Judge:W. Charles Lee
Bedford County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01C01-9511-CC-00357

01C01-9511-CC-00357

Originating Judge:J. O. Bond
Macon County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
03C01-9512-CC-00385

03C01-9512-CC-00385

Originating Judge:R. Jerry Beck
Sullivan County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01C01-9510-CR-00328

01C01-9510-CR-00328

Originating Judge:Jane W. Wheatcraft
Sumner County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
Conviction. Our Supreme Court, In State v. Kimbrough, 924 S.W.2D 888 (Tenn.

01C01-9506-CC-00178

Originating Judge:W. Charles Lee
Bedford County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
03C01-9512-CC-00398

03C01-9512-CC-00398

Originating Judge:Frank L. Slaughter
Sullivan County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9603-CH-00128

01A01-9603-CH-00128

Originating Judge:William B. Cain
Maury County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
01C01-9506-CC-00178lerk

01C01-9506-CC-00178lerk

Originating Judge:W. Charles Lee
Bedford County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9606-CV-00270

01A01-9606-CV-00270

Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall
Sumner County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9510-CV-00456

01A01-9510-CV-00456

Originating Judge:Walter C. Kurtz
Davidson County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
Mary A. Marshall v. Bc/Bs of Memphis, et al

02S01-9606-CV-00058
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee contends it was error to summarily dismiss her claim as being barred by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a statute of limitation. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for trial of all issues raised by the pleadings. The action was commenced by the filing of a complaint and summons on February 24, 1995 seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries and disabilities arising out of and in the course of the claimant's employment with the defendant, Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Memphis. In particular, the employee claims that she has become permanently disabled from the repetitive trauma of operating a key punch machine. By their responsive pleading, the defendants deny the existence of the injury and deny that they received timely notice, but do not assert the affirmative defense that the claim is barred by any statute of limitations. The defendants then took the claimant's discovery deposition and interrogated her concerning, among other things, when she first knew her work was causing pain. Her deposition reveals that her pain began in 1992 and was reported to the employer. The employer, however, chose to treat her claim not as one for workers' compensation benefits, but for group health benefits. On January 18, 1996, the defendants served a pre-trial "Motion to Dismiss" the claimant's claim "pursuant to Rule 41.2 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure" for "failure to file such cause of action within the time prescribed by Section 5-6-23 of the Tennessee Code Annotated." The motion was, according to the trial judge's order of dismissal, "supported by" the claimant's discovery deposition. The trial judge treated the motion as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment, found from the deposition that the claimant "was told in 1992 that she was suffering work related injuries to her wrists, shoulders, neck and back by her physicians (sic) statement to her employer so stating and was told by her employer she did not have a workers' compensation claim," and dismissed the claim as being time-barred. By Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.3, summary judgment will lie if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is almost never an option in workers' compensation cases; however, when there is no dispute over the evidence establishing thefacts 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Irma Merrill,
Marshall County Workers Compensation Panel 11/27/96
01C01-9509-CC-00285

01C01-9509-CC-00285
Montgomery County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9606-CH-00254

01A01-9606-CH-00254

Originating Judge:Robert S. Brandt
Davidson County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
01A01-9606-CH-00285

01A01-9606-CH-00285

Originating Judge:Allen W. Wallace
Cheatham County Court of Appeals 11/27/96
03C01-9604-CC-00153

03C01-9604-CC-00153
Blount County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/27/96
Doris Tabor v. Crossville Ceramics

03S01-9510-CV-00117
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. The plaintiff alleges that on March 7, 1994 she sustained injuries to her arms and hands during the course of her employment owing to their repetitive use; that she returned to work as a polisher for the Crossville Ceramics Company and that on March 23, 1994 she injured her neck or back while pushing a box of tiles. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff suffered a temporary injury but denied that she sustained a permanent disability. Thereafter, on May 24, 1995, an approved Order was entered whereby the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed "her cause of action as to her March 23, 1994 injuries" pursuant to Rule 41, Tenn. R. Civ. P. This procedure is unchallenged, and we will treat the complaint as having been amended to allege a compensable injury by accident which occurred on March 7, 1994. The plaintiff testified that she worked as a sorter in the polishing department of the ceramics manufacturer, the kind of work that required repetitive motions of both arms. On March 7, 1994 numbness and tingling developed in both arms which she reported to her supervisor and for which she received conservative medical treatment. She continued at her job for more than one year, leaving employment in April 1995 after allegedly suffering a neck injury. During the thirteen months between March 1994 and April 1995 the plaintiff was seen by a procession of physicians practicing various disciplines. Dr. Simpson, the orthopedic physician selected by the plaintiff, treated her over a period of months and concluded that she exaggerated her symptoms which were not anatomic. He testified that she suffered no impairment. His findings are supported by those of the Knoxville Neurology Clinic and the East Tennessee Orthopedic Clinic. The plaintiff was referred by her attorney to Dr. Gorman, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Johnson City, who testified that she had a five (5) percent impairment in each arm, and recommended avoidance of "repetitive factory work." 2
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. John J. Maddux, Jr.,
Cumberland County Workers Compensation Panel 11/26/96