Opinion FlashMarch 19, 2002
Volume 8 Number 050
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
WILLIAM ANDREW DIXON v. FLORA J. HOLLAND, WARDEN AND WILLIAM ANDREW DIXON v. DONAL CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER OF TDOC Court:TSC Attorneys: Thomas F. Bloom, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Andrew Dixon. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Kim R. Helper, Assistant Attorney General; and Pamela S. Lorch, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellees, Donal Campbell, Commissioner for the Department of Corrections, and Flora Holland, Warden. opinion. Judge: HOLDER First Paragraph: We granted review in these consolidated cases to determine (1) whether William Andrew Dixon's sentence under Tenn. Code Ann. S 39-2603 (1975) is void and thus subject to habeas corpus relief; and (2) whether Tenn. Code Ann. S 41-21-236(c) (1997) applies to Dixon's sentence. We hold that Dixon's sentence is void and grant habeas corpus relief. We further hold that Dixon is entitled to any sentence reduction credits earned from 1988 until 1998. Our grant of habeas corpus relief pretermits the remaining issues raised by Dixon. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the criminal court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/dixonwill.wpd
EXXON CORPORATION v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al. Court:TSC Attorneys: Scott K. Haynes, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Exxon Corporation. John L. Kennedy, Shayna Abrams, and Daniel Champney, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, and Metropolitan Beer Permit Board of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Judge: DROWOTA First Paragraph: We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in defining the phrase "on that same location" as it is used in Tenn. Code Ann. S 57-5-109 to mean anywhere within the boundary lines of the property. We hold that such a definition, when considered in pari materia with the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Code, broadens the scope of this statutory grandfather provision. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/exxon.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALVIN RAY TAYLOR Court:TSC Attorneys: Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General; Charles Michael Layne, District Attorney General; Stephen E. Weitzman, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee Gregory M. O'Neal, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellee, Alvin Ray Taylor Judge: DROWOTA First Paragraph: The sole issue in this appeal is whether Article I, Section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution or the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution is violated by Tenn. Code Ann. S 55-50- 504(a)(2), a statute which provides a minimum fine, for second offense driving on a revoked license, but which fails to provide a maximum fine for the offense. We conclude that the statute is not facially unconstitutional under either the state or the federal constitution. However, fines imposed in specific cases under such statutes are subject to being challenged as excessive. When such a challenge is made, however, courts should first apply the principles of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act to determine whether the fine is excessive before analyzing the constitutional validity of the fine. We conclude that the $27,500 fine imposed by the jury in this case is excessive under the principles of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act. Accordingly, we modify the fine to the statutory minimum of $3,000. As modified, this fine does not contravene the state and federal constitutional provisions prohibiting excessive fines. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals holding Tenn. Code Ann. S 55-50-504(a)(2) unconstitutional. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/tayloralvinray.wpd
BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY v. RUTH JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TCA Attorneys: James W. McBride, Washington, D.C. and Brigid M. Carpenter, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Company. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and Russell S. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Ruth Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, the State of Tennessee. Judge: CANTRELL First Paragraph: The State Commissioner of Revenue imposed a use tax on the cost price of telephone directories produced in Alabama and distributed in Tennessee by BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Company ("BAPCO"). BAPCO claimed a credit for sales taxes it paid in Alabama when it purchased the photocompositions used to print the directories. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. We affirm the lower court's decision because BAPCO did not show that it was entitled to the credit and the Tennessee use tax in this case does not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/bapco.wpd
BARBARA K. COCHRAN v. JACKIE D. COCHRAN, et al. Court:TCA Attorneys: Clinton R. Anderson, Morristown, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Barbara K. Cochran James R. Scroggins, Jefferson City, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Jackie D. Cochran O. D. Bridges, Jefferson City, Tennessee, for the Appellees, Thomas M. Crawford and wife Mary Ruth Crawford Judge: GODDARD First Paragraph: This is a suit wherein the Plaintiff, Barbara K. Cochran, sues her former husband, Jackie D. Cochran, seeking specific performance of her claimed right of first refusal to purchase certain real estate. Thomas M. Crawford and his wife, who had purchased the property from Mr. Cochran, were also made parties Defendant. The Trial Court found that Mr. Cochran had met his obligation to give Ms. Cochran the right to purchase the property in accordance with her right of first refusal and that she had declined to accept the offer. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/cochranbar.wpd
POLK COUNTY, TENNESSEE v. GLENDA B. ROGERS, d/b/a OCOEE RIVER RATS Court:TCA Attorneys: Joe Gene Bagwell, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Glenda B. Rogers, d/b/a Ocoee River Rats Denny Ernest Mobbs, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Polk County, Tennessee Judge: GODDARD First Paragraph: In this appeal from the Polk County Chancery Court the Appellant , Glenda B. Rogers, d/b/a Ocoee River Rats, contends that evidence presented at trial showed that the classification of whitewater rafting businesses and their customers under a private act applicable to the Appellee, Polk County, assessing a privilege tax on guided rafting ticket sales by such businesses in Polk County is without reasonable basis and that the Trial Court's finding to the contrary was in error. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and we adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/polkcnty.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSS BURGER Court:TCCA Attorneys: Charles M. Corn, District Public Defender, and A. Wayne Carter, Assistant Public Defender, for the appellant, Ross Burger. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; P. Robin Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Jerry N. Estes, District Attorney General; and Shari Lynn Tayloe, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WILLIAMS First Paragraph: Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of placement in the Community Corrections Program. Denial of placement in Community Corrections Program for untruthfulness and failure to report to begin sentence of incarceration was not abuse of discretion. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/burgerr.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