TBALink Opinion-Flash

May 17, 1996 -- Volume #2 -- Number #48

Here is today's issue of TBALink Opinion-Flash. What follows is the document name, first paragraph and the names of the attorneys for the parties (If you know one of them you might want to give them a call, chances are they don't know about the opinion yet) of each electronic opinion/rules released TODAY from the three appellate courts.

This Issue IN THIS ORDER:
- New Opinons From TSC
- New Opinons From TSC-Rules
- New Opinons From TSC-Workers Comp Panel
3 New Opinons From TCA
1 New Opinons From TCCA

There are three ways to get the full opinion from the Web: (TBALink members only)

  • Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink.This option will allow you to view and save a plain text version of the opinion.

  • *NEW* Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink. This option will allow you to download the original WP 6.0 document. version of the opinion.

  • Click the URL Link at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original WP 6.0 document.

Jim Moore
TBALink Co-Chief Editor

ARCHIE BROOKS and wife, PATSY BROOKS,
v.
BOBBY BRAKE and wife, JUNE BRAKE,

Court:TCA

Laurence M. McMillan, Jr., Cunningham, Mitchell, Hicks,
Brollier & McMillan of Clarksville
For Defendants-Appellants

David D. Wolfe of Dickson
For Plaintiffs-Appellees
                       
First Paragraph:

This appeal involves a boundary line dispute.  Plaintiffs,
Archie Brooks, and wife, Patsy Brooks, and defendants, Bobby
Brake, and wife, June Brake, are adjacent landowners. 
Plaintiffs complaint alleges that defendants are
trespassing on their property and disputes the true boundary
line established by survey.  The complaint avers that
plaintiffs had an agreement with Edward Coleman, a timber
cutter, to harvest timber on plaintiffs property. 
Defendants, through their attorney, notified Coleman in
writing that the property belonged to the defendants and
threatened Coleman with a lawsuit if he attempted to perform
the timber cutting contract.  The complaint further avers
that defendants have interfered with the peaceful use and
enjoyment of their property causing plaintiffs damages and
requiring that they file this lawsuit to obtain judicial
relief.  Plaintiffs seek the establishment of the boundary
line between the parties, injunction against defendants from
trespassing on their property, and an award of damages for
the loss of the timber contract, costs and attorney fees
incurred in protecting the title to their property.

Judge: W. FRANK CRAWFORD, PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.

URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/BROOKSAR.OPN.WP6
Opinion-Flash

STATE OF TENNESSEE, EX REL ADRIENNE A. HARDISON,
v.
KENNETH K. GARRETT,         

Court:TCA

ROBERT S. PETERS
PATRICIA DIANE COOK
SWAFFORD, PETERS & PRIEST
Winchester, Tennessee
Attorneys for Appellant

CHARLES W. BURSON
Attorney General & Reporter

JAMES H. TUCKER, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
Nashville, Tennessee
Attorney for Appellee
                      
First Paragraph:

Appellee, Adrienne Hardison, filed a Petition to Establish
Paternity in the Juvenile Court of Bedford County, naming
appellant, Robert K. Garrett, as the natural father of her
minor child, Angel Michelle Hardison. Following a hearing,
the trial court ordered DNA/blood testing of the parties and
of the minor child.The blood tests subsequently established
to a 99.58% probability that appellant is the natural father
of the child.

Judge: HIGHERS, J.

URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/HARDISON.OPN.WP6
Opinion-Flash

ENNIS J. HURDLE, JR., v. BETTE B. HURDLE,   

Court:TCA

Wanda B. Shea, Memphis, Tennessee
Mitchell D. Moskovitz, Memphis, Tennessee
Attorney for Defendant/Appellant.

Charles M. Cary,
DENTON AND CARY, Bolivar, Tennessee
Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee.
                      
First Paragraph:

The 23 year marriage of Bette B. Hurdle (Wife) and Ennis J.
Hurdle, Jr. (Husband) was dissolved by a final decree of
divorce entered by the trial court on October 18, 1994.  In
this appeal, we are concerned only with the trial courts
classification, division and/or valuation of the couples
property.  Wifes issues on appeal are as follows:
1.  Did the trial court err in failing to enforce Husbands
stipulation as to the value of, and which party was to
receive, the Chamber and Hancock Farm?
2.  Did the trial court err in valuing husbands separate
property interest in Hurdle Machine Works, Inc. at $120,000?
3.  Did the trial court err in valuing husbands separate
property interest in the real property commonly known as the
Hurdle Machine Works lot at $26,700?

Judge: FARMER, J.

URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/HURDLE.OPN.WP6
Opinion-Flash

STATE OF TENNESSEE, v. CHRIS BILLINGSLEY,   

Court:TCCA

FOR THE APPELLANT:                  FOR THE APPELLEE:


JERRY H. SUMMERS                CHARLES W. BURSON
Summers, McCrea & Wyatt         Attorney General & Reporter
500 Lindsay St.
Chattanooga, TN 37402-1490      MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II
                                Asst. Attorney General
                                450 James Robertson Pkwy.
                                Nashville, TN  37243-0493

                                J. MICHAEL TAYLOR
                                District Attorney General

                                JAMES W. POPE, III
                                Asst. District AG
                                12th Judicial District
                                First American Bank Building
                                Dayton, TN 37321
                      
First Paragraph:

The defendant was charged in the indictment with one count
of burglary and one count of theft of property valued over
one thousand dollars ($1,000).  On May 17, 1994, he was
convicted at a jury trial on both counts.  The trial court
imposed concurrent sentences of six years as a Range II
multiple offender on each count.  In this appeal as of
right, the defendant presents the following five issues for
review:
1.  whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the
jury that Ronald Green was either an accomplice at law or an
accomplice as a question of fact;
2.  whether there was sufficient evidence and corroboration
of accomplice testimony to support the defendants
convictions;
3.  whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct
the jury pursuant to two of the defendants requested
instructions;
4.  whether the trial court erred in sentencing the
defendant as a Range II multiple offender; and,
5.  whether the defendant should be granted a new trial
based on newly discovered evidence pertaining to the
testimony of Ronald Green.
We find that the defendants issues lack merit, and his
convictions and sentences are therefore affirmed.

Judge: JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/BILLINGS.OPN.WP6

Feel free to forward this Opinion-Flash on to any attorney you know of with an internet address, who is not a TBALink member. To Join TBALink - Http://www.tba.org/join.html/

Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion-Flash each day via e-mail?
1) Send an e-mail message to: Opinion-Flash@tba.org
2) In the SUBJECT of the message type: SUBSCRIBE
3) Leave the body of the message blank

Non TBA members are WELCOME to subscribe...it's free!!

Would you like to STOP receiving the TBALink Opinion-Flash?
1) Send an e-mail message to: Opinion-Flash@tba.org
2) In the SUBJECT of the message type: UNSUBSCRIBE
3) Leave the body of the message blank


© Copyright 1998 Tennessee Bar Association