Opinion FlashFebruary 28, 2002
Volume 8 Number 037
What follows is the case style or name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion released eletronically today to TBALink.
There are three ways for TBALink members to get the full-text versions of these opinions from the Web:
Howard H. Vogel
JOHN PITT, II d/b/a PITT EXCAVATING v. TYREE ORGANIZATION LIMITED and DOUG SUESS d/b/a DOUG SUESS CONCRETE Court:TCA Attorneys: Tom Corts, Nashville, For Appellant, Doug Suess d/b/a Doug Suess Concrete Reid D. Leitner, Nashville, For Appellee, John Pitt, II, d/b/a Pitt Excavating Robert Orr, Jr., Nashville, For Appellee, Tyree Organization Limited Judge: CRAWFORD First Paragraph: This is a declaratory judgment action involving the interpretation and application of an indemnification provision contained in a construction contract. Defendant, Doug Suess d/b/a Doug Suess Concrete (hereinafter "Suess"), appeals from the final order of the trial court granting summary judgment to both plaintiff, John Pitt, II d/b/a Pitt Excavating (hereinafter "Pitt") and defendant, Tyree Organization Limited (hereinafter "Tyree"). We reverse. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/pittjoh.wpd
RUTHERFORD COUNTY v. MARTHA JORDAN WILSON, et al. Court:TCA Attorneys: Andree Sophia Blumstein, William L. Harbison, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Cathey Baskin. Larry K. Tolbert, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellees, Martha Jordan Wilson, Jane Maurice Wilson and Diane Wilson McCord. Judge: COTTRELL First Paragraph: This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a grant of real property giving a life estate to the grantor's daughter with the remainder to go to the "heirs of her body" and, if at her death there were none, to the grantor's heirs at law. Rutherford County condemned a portion of the property, and the parties dispute apportionment of the condemnation proceeds. The life tenant is still living; therefore, her life estate has not terminated. However, the widow of the life tenant's deceased son claims that she has a one sixth (1/6) interest in the property because her husband owned a vested transmissible interest in the remainder, which passed in part to his widow on his death by intestate succession. The trial court found that Tennessee's statute governing class gifts requires that the son's issue, living at the termination of the life estate, would take his share of the remainder. Therefore, the widow would not be entitled to a portion of the remainder. The widow now appeals to this court. For reasons discussed herein, we affirm the trial court's determination that the widow had no interest in the remainder. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/rutherfordco.wpd
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY v. KENTON FREEMAN, et al. Court:TCA Attorneys: John D. Schwalb, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travelers Indemnity Company. Steven A. Riley, Gregory S. Reynolds and Chris L. Vlahos, for the appellee Kenton Freeman, individually, and as next friend of Will Freeman. Judge: GODDARD First Paragraph: Travelers Indemnity Company [Travelers] filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment respecting its liability to pay UM coverage for the minor child of its policyholder who was divorced from the child's mother, with joint custody having been awarded. Mother was killed in a traffic accident in Alabama; her passenger child was injured. Mother owned and was driving her automobile, and she also had UM coverage. The adverse driver had split liability coverage all of which was paid, in equal parts, to the Administrator of the mother's estate, and to the minor child. Mother's UM carrier paid its entire policy proceeds to her administrator. Travelers objected, inter alia, to the lack of allocation of the proceeds of mother's UM coverage. Travelers' insured, on behalf of his minor child, filed a counter-claim against Travelers for the entire UM coverage, notwithstanding an amount certain had never been determined. The court found that Travelers had never disputed that the value of the minor child's claim exceeded the UM coverage and rendered a summary judgment against Travelers for an amount certain. We vacate and remand. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/travelersind.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARIO RICKY ORLANDO PRINTIS Court:TCCA Attorneys: David L. Hamblen, Union City, Tennessee (at trial), C. Michael Robbins, Memphis, Tennessee, and Kevin McAlpin, Dresden, Tennessee (on appeal), for the Appellant, Mario Ricky Orlando Printis. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Angele M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney General; J. Scott McCluen, District Attorney General; and James Cannon, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WITT First Paragraph: Mario Ricky Orlando Printis appeals from his convictions of driving under the influence and evading arrest. He questions the sufficiency of the evidence that he committed Class D felony evading arrest, as opposed to the Class E form of that crime, and he complains that the trial court sentenced him too harshly. Because we are unpersuaded, we affirm the convictions and sentences imposed. Due to an omission from the DUI judgment form, however, we modify that judgment to correspond with the lower court's pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/printism.wpd
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
For the HTML Text Version:
UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
To STOP receiving TBALink Opinion-Flash:
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association