
What follows is the case style or name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of the attorneys for the parties of each opinion released today from Tennessee's three appellate courts.
- 05-New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
- 09-New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers Comp Panel
- 00-New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
- 00-New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
- 00-New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
- 00-New Judicial Ethics Opinion(s)
- 00-New Formal Ethics Opinion(s) from the Board of Professional Responsibility
There are three ways to get the full opinion from the Web: (TBALink members only)
Lucian T. Pera
Editor-in-Chief, TBALink

VICTOR JAMES CAZES VS. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TSC Attorneys: For Appellant: For Appellee: PETER D. HEIL JOHN KNOX WALKUP Nashville, TN Attorney General and Reporter MICHAEL E. MOORE Solicitor General ELIZABETH T. RYAN Assistant Attorney General Nashville, TN WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General JOHN W. CAMPBELL Assistant District Attorney General Memphis, TN Judge:BIRCH First Paragraph: We granted Victor James Cazes's application for permission to appeal, pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 11, to determine whether the dismissal with prejudice of a post-conviction petition bars consideration of a subsequent one. We conclude that the dismissal with prejudice compels dismissal of a later petition that is predicated on grounds in existence prior to the dismissal of the former petition. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/cazesv_opn.WP6JAMES AND CAROLYN CHRISMAN VS. HILL HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC. and JIM HILL Court:TSC Attorneys: For Appellees: For Appellants: DONALD E. OVERTON TERRILL L. ADKINS GLENNA W. OVERTON Knoxville, TN Knoxville, TN Judge:BIRCH First Paragraph: We granted permission to appeal under Rule 11, Tenn. R. App. P., to Jim Hill and Hill Home Development, Inc., the defendants, in order to determine whether they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims of concealment or nuisance. With regard to the claim of concealment, we find that Hill is entitled to summary judgment because he has demonstrated that the plaintiffs are unable to prove an essential element of their claim. As respects the claim of nuisance, we find that the statute of repose bars that claim, thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/chrismaj_opn.WP6
JAMES AND CAROLYN CHRISMAN VS. HILL HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC. and JIM HILL Court:TSC First Paragraph: This cause came to be heard upon briefs, argument of counsel, and the record on appeal from the Court of Appeals. The Court is of the opinion that under the facts of this case, summary judgment is appropriate for the claim of fraudulent concealment against Hill because Hill demonstrated that plaintiffs will be unable to prove an essential element of the tort. We are also of the opinion that summary judgment is appropriate for the claim of nuisance against Hill and Hill Home Development because the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. S 28-3-202 bars that claim. In accordance with the opinion filed herewith, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/chrismaj_ord.WP6
PREMIUM FINANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA VS. CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF MEMPHIS, INC., CRUMP E & S OF MEMPHIS, INC., NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THOMAS JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, STRATFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL FIR & MARINE INSURANCE, CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LLOYDS OF LONDON, and GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY Court:TSC Attorneys: For Appellee: For Appellants: Crump Insurance Services of Memphis, J. ALLAN HANOVER Inc., f/k/a Crump E & S of Memphis, Inc. BARBARA B. LAPIDES J. RICHARD BUCHIGNANI JEFFERY S. ROSENBLUM ROSS HIGMAN Memphis, TN Memphis, TN Northland Insurance Company RICHARD GLASSMAN Memphis, TN National Indemnity Company National Liability & Fire Insurance Company National Fire & Marine Insurance Company JOHN D. RICHARDSON Memphis, TN Canal Insurance Company Thomas Jefferson Insurance Company Scottsdale Insurance Company National Casualty Company National Fire and Casualty Company HENRY T. V. MILLER WILLIAM A. LUCCHESI Memphis, TN Stratford Insurance Company JAMES R. GARTS, JR. Memphis, TN Continental Insurance Company Glens Falls Insurance Company SAM B. BLAIR, JR. Memphis, TN Judge:BIRCH First Paragraph: In the current case, the plaintiff, a premium finance company, alleged damage as a result of the defendant insurance companies' failure to return unearned premiums to the plaintiff after cancellation of the underlying insurance contracts. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the trial court granted as to the plaintiff's claim under the Premium Finance Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. S 56-37-101 et seq. (1994) (hereinafter "the Act"). The trial court certified its order as final in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Tenn. Code Ann. S 56-37-111 (1994). URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/premium_opn.WP6
THE CITY OF WHITE HOUSE VS. LAWRENCE RAY WHITLEY, District Attorney General for the Eighteenth Judicial District of the State of Tennessee, JOHN CARNEY, District Attorney General For the Nineteenth Judicial District of the State of Tennessee and STATE OF TENNESSEE AND TAYLOR (TED) EMERY, Sheriff for Robertson County, Tennessee; J.D. VANDERCOOK, Sheriff for Sumner County, Tennessee Court:TSC Judge:HOLDER First Paragraph: I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion. The legislature has set forth the requirements for judges. While a rule mandating attorney municipal judges may be desirable, no provision of either the state or federal constitution requires attorney judges. Mere disagreement with legislative mandate is neither a sufficient reason for this Court to redraft legislation nor a sufficient reason for this Court to redefine the Tennessee Constitution. The policy rejected as unconstitutional by the majority was not only the norm when the constitution was drafted, but also has passed federal constitutional muster in North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328, 96 S.Ct. 2709, 49 L.Ed.2d 534 (1976). Accordingly, I would hold that this area is purely one of legislative prerogative and reserved for the voting public. I further disagree with the majority's holding that rules designed to eliminate practices which deprive accused of their fundamental right to fair trials should not be applied retroactively. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/whitehou_dis.WP6
NORMA J. BAKER VS. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellants: For the Appellee: Joseph H. Crabtree James F. Butler Gayle B. Lakey Jonathan O. Steen 80 Monroe Ave, Ste 500 Spragins, Barnett, Cobb & Butler Memphis, TN 38103 P.O. Box 2004 Jackson, TN 38302-2004 Judge:BYERS First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. ¤ 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge found the plaintiff had suffered a 55 percent vocational impairment to her left leg and also awarded medical expenses in the amount of $1,112.00, which the defendant says were unauthorized. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/bakernor_opn.WP6
LINDA BUTLER VS. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: D. Brett Burrow Floyd Don Davis Sharon E. England John R. Colvin Brewer, Krause & Brooks Floyd Don Davis, P.C. 611 Commerce St, Ste 2600 201 First Avenue, N.W. P. O. Box 23890 Winchester, TN 37398 Nashville, TN 37202-3890 Judge:INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Chancellor found that the plaintiff sustained an injury to her left foot which resulted in a 30 percent vocational impairment. This finding is challenged on appeal. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995). URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/butler_opn.WP6
CONNIE S. COVINGTON VS. NAGLE INDUSTRIES, INC. Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: James B. Crenshaw Sean Antone Hunt 108 South Second Street Spicer, Flynn & Rudstrom, PLLC Clarksville, TN 37040 424 Church Street, Suite 1350 Nashville, TN 37219-2305 Judge: First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case the plaintiff ran afoul of the well-settled principle that the issues in a workers' compensation case, like any other, must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge ruled that the appealing plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving causation and dismissed her claim for permanent, partial disability benefits. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tenn. 1995). URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/covingto_opn.WP6
INGRAM BOOK COMPANY VS. STACEY FITZGERALD Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For Appellant: For Appellee: David B. Burrow Herbert M. Schaltegger Brewer, Krause & Brooks Thomas, Henderson & Pate Nashville, Tennessee Murfreesboro, Tennessee Judge:LOSER First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, Ingram Book Company, contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that (1) the employee's injury was one arising out of and in the course of employment, (2) the award is not barred by the last injury rule and (3) the claimant retains a twelve percent vocational disability award. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/ingram_opn.WP6
BRUCE WESLEY LINK VS. THE AEROSTRUCTURES CORPORATION Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: Frederick W. Hodge James G. Stranch, III Court Square Building Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch 300 James Robertson Parkway & Jennings Nashville, TN 37201-1107 227 Second Avenue North, 4th Flr. Nashville, TN 37201-1631 Judge:INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. A finding of 12 percent disability to the plaintiff's left leg is derided by the employer who strenuously argues that the evidence strongly weighs against the judgment and that the claim for permanent, partial disability should be denied. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/link_opn.WP6
ROBBY McCURRY VS. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Division of Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: Martin L. Ellis & David H. Dunaway Vonda M. Laughlin Dunaway & Associates Butler, Vines & Babb, P.L.L.C. LaFollette, Tennessee Judge:BARKER First Paragraph: In this workers' compensation action, the employer, Container Corporation of America (C.C.A.), defendant-appellant, has appealed from a judgment of the Chancery Court of Campbell County finding the plaintiff-appellee's injuries arose from a work-related dispute and were thus compensable. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, upon reference for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225 (e)(5) (Supp. 1997), affirmed the trial court. Thereafter, C.C.A. filed a motion for full court review of the Panel's decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(5)(B)(Supp. 1997). We granted the appeal in this case to determine whether the appellee's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with the C.C.A. For the reasons provided herein, we conclude that the injuries did not occur during the course of the appellee's employment. The decision of the Panel is reversed and the case is dismissed. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/mccurryr_opn.WP6
WILLIAM McDOWELL VS. HENRY I. SIEGEL COMPANY, INC. and ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellants: For the Appellee: Stephen R. Butler Kenneth L. Walker Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Cantrell Walker Law Office 262 German Oak Drive P. O. Box 530 Cordova, TN 38018 Lexington, TN 38351 Judge:TATUM First Paragraph: This workersÕ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special WorkersÕ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. ¤ 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge found that the plaintiff had sustained thirty percent permanent partial disability to each arm and entered judgment accordingly. URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/mcdowell_opn.WP6
DIANNA SKELTON VS. ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS COMPANY and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: William G. McCaskill, Jr. Hugh Green Wm. Ritchie Pigue 100 Public Square TAYLOR, PHILBEN, PIGUE Lebanon, TN 37087 MARCHETTI & BENNETT, PLLC One Union Street P. O. Box 198169 Nashville, TN 37219-8169 Judge:INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded Dianna Skelton ["employee"] workers' compensation benefits based on one-hundred percent permanent, total disability. Robertshaw Controls Company ["employer"] appeals, challenging the extent of employee's disability, the admissibility of the opinion of a clinical psychologist as to permanency of employee's disability, and the failure of the trial court to apply the multiplier caps set forth in T.C.A. S 50-6-241(a)(1). URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/skelton_opn.WP6
JAMES W. SMITH VS. WILSON COUNTY CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. and AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: For the Appellant: For the Appellee: Alice Margaret Essary Hugh Green William B. Jakes, III 100 Public Square Howell & Fisher, PLLC Lebanon, TN 37087 300 James Robertson Parkway Court Square Building Nashville, TN 37201 Judge:INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In January, 1997, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment that the plaintiff was totally and permanently vocationally disabled, with benefits awarded accordingly. The plaintiff returned to the trial court complaining that the judgment was not being satisfied in a timely way. He alleged that the accrued benefits were not paid timely, and that his "weekly checks" were sporadic. To correct this problem he filed a motion to require the defendant to pay the entire judgment or, alternatively, "that the Court determine the interest as the parties were in dispute as to the amount and the method by which it should be figured." URL:http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/smithjas_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
