Opinion FlashApril 26, 2002Volume 8 — Number 072 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 AEGIS INVESTIGATIVE GROUP v. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY Court:TCA Attorneys: Dennis Stanford and Daniel W. Champney, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Phillip L. Davidson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Aegis Investigative Group. Judge: NEAL First Paragraph: This appeal involves the efforts of defendant, The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, to reverse a judgment in favor of Aegis Investigative Group (Aegis). Plaintiff, a private investigating firm, was hired to watch the wife of a Murfreesboro client for information in a divorce action by placing an electronic tracking device on her car. After the wife discovered the device, she came to the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department to have the device removed as part of a stalking investigation on September 5, 1997. Metro held the device as potential evidence in a stalking and illegal use investigation and notified the Murfreesboro Police Department of a possible violation of Tenn. Code Ann. S 39-13-606. No charges were placed against Aegis. Notwithstanding the conclusion of its investigation, Metro did not return the device to plaintiff for some five (5) months after suit was filed, resulting in a judgment for $20,000 for negligence under the provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for failure to return the tracking device. We hold that a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant is not supported in the record and reverse the judgment entered by the trial court and assess the costs of this appeal to the appellee. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/aegisvmetro.wpd DANA GENUA v. EMORY ASSOCIATES, et al. Court:TCA Attorneys: W. Andrew Fox and Jack W. Bowers, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Dana Genua. David L. Buuck, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Emory Associates. John T. Johnson, Jr. and John E. Winters, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Edward Sanchez. Judge: SUSANO First Paragraph: The plaintiff challenges the adequacy of a jury verdict. The defendant Edward Sanchez points us in a different direction; he contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict. This litigation started when Dana Genua sued Emory Associates ("the partnership") and Sanchez - respectively the former and present owners of a tract of property situated near the plaintiff's land - seeking to recover for flooding damage to the plaintiff's property allegedly caused by surface water run-off from the defendants' property. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him $15,000 in damages against the partnership and $10,000 as to Sanchez. The plaintiff then filed a motion for an additur or a new trial on the issue of damages, and the partnership and Sanchez each filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict. The trial court denied all motions, approved the verdict, and enjoined Sanchez from continuing the nuisance. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the damage awards are below the lower limit of the range of reasonableness. Sanchez raises the additional issue of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/genuad.wpd GORDON LAIN McCAMMON, et al. v. WILLIAM GIFFORD, SR., et al. Court:TCA Attorneys: Bruce Balcom, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Gordon Lain McCammon, Gordon F. McCammon, and Gale L. McCammon. Kent E. Krause and Gordon C. Aulgur, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, William Gifford, Sr., d/b/a OK Campground. Judge: KOCH First Paragraph: This appeal involves a guest of two residents of a campground who was badly burned when a can of paint thinner ignited in his hosts' camper. The guest filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Davidson County against his hosts and the owner of the campground. The trial court dismissed the claims against the owner of the campground on summary judgment after concluding that the owner's duty to render aid ended once the guest's brother undertook to provide this assistance. We affirm the summary judgment because the record contains no evidence that the guest's brother was incompetent to come to his aid. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/mccammongl.wpd TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY v. KENTON FREEMAN, et al. Court:TCA OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR Judge: GODDARD http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/travelersind_reh.wpd STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BOBBY VINCENT BLACKMON (This replaces the opinion originally filed November 16, 2001 and includes a substitute for page 6.) Court:TCCA Attorneys: Randy P. Lucas, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Bobby Vincent Blackmon. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General; Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General; and Dee David Gay, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: HAYES First Paragraphs: In May of 1993, the Appellant, Bobby Vincent Blackmon, was indicted by a Sumner County grand jury for one count of class A felony possession of cocaine over 300 grams stemming from his involvement in a "reverse sting" drug operation. He was subsequently convicted in February of 1995. In 1998, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted Blackmon a new trial. See State v. Bobby Vincent Blackmon, 984 S.W.2d 589 (Tenn. 1998). In November of 1999, Blackmon was re-tried and again convicted of the offense of possession with the intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine. After a sentencing hearing on May 17, 2000, the trial court sentenced Blackmon to thirty-eight years as a Range II offender and ordered his sentence be served consecutive to a prior first-degree murder conviction. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether Blackmon was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow Blackmon to assert an "outrageous government conduct" defense, an entrapment defense and/or an impossibility defense; (3) whether the indictment in this case was fatally defective; and (4) whether the sentence was excessive. After review, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/blackmonbv.wpd PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL! GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION! JOIN TBALink! SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH! For the HTML Text Version: UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT! To STOP receiving TBALink Opinion-Flash: Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help |
|
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association
|