Opinion FlashAugust 6, 2002Volume 8 — Number 136 Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion.
TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version.
Howard H. Vogel JANET BOLTON, et al. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TCA Attorneys: Paul G. Summers, Michael E. Moore and Laura T. Kidwell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, State of Tennessee. Joe E. Guess and Samuel A. Guess, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellees, Janet Bolton and Jack Bolton. Judge: SWINEY First Paragraph: Janet Bolton and Jack Bolton ("Plaintiffs") sued the State of Tennessee ("State"), alleging the State was liable for injuries Janet Bolton received in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on a State highway in Loudon County. The State filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the defense of discretionary function immunity. The Tennessee Claims Commission denied the motion. The State appeals. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/boltonj.wpd FLYNT ENGINEERING COMPANY v. WILLIAM COX Court:TCA Attorneys: Jerry H. McCarter, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, for the Appellant, William Cox Adrienne L. Anderson, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Flynt Engineering Company Judge: GODDARD First Paragraph: This is a suit by Flynt Engineering Company against William Cox, seeking to recover the value of services rendered to Mr. Cox under the terms of a written contract. The Trial Judge granted a summary judgment in favor of Flynt Engineering in the amount of $115,753.15. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/flynteng.wpd APRIL GRANT INGLE v. ROBERT WAYNE INGLE Court:TCA Attorneys: Arnold A. Stulce, Jr., Chattanooga, for the appellant, April Grant Ingle. Richard A. Schulman and Brenda R. Grant, Chattanooga, for the appellee, Robert Wayne Ingle. Judge: SUSANO First Paragraph: This is a post-divorce case. The parties were divorced in 1998. On September 21, 2000, April Grant Ingle ("Mother") filed a petition to modify the parties' divorce judgment. She alleged that Robert Wayne Ingle ("Father") had been unemployed at the time of the divorce, and, consequently, was not ordered to pay child support. She further alleged that he had subsequently become employed and that he should now be ordered to pay child support computed pursuant to the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines"). Mother also sought to modify Father's visitation as set forth in the divorce judgment. After comparing the parties' respective incomes, the trial court ordered Father to pay child support of $177 per month. Mother appeals. We vacate the trial court's child support award and the effective date of that award. The remainder of the trial court's order is affirmed. This case is remanded to the trial court for such additional proceedings as may be necessary and for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/ingleag.wpd STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES ANTHONY CLINE Court:TCCA Attorneys: Steve McEwen, Mountain City, Tennessee (on appeal), and Mack Garner, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellant, James Anthony Cline. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Kathy D. Aslinger, Assistant Attorney General; Mike Flynn, District Attorney General; and Edward P. Bailey, Jr., Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: MCGEE OGLE First Paragraph: The appellant, James Anthony Cline, pled guilty to one count of theft of property and received a probationary sentence. Prior to the entry of the judgment of conviction, the appellant committed another theft offense. Additionally, during the appellant's probationary sentence, the appellant was convicted of several other offenses, including four forgery offenses. As a result of the appellant's continued criminal conduct, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the appellant violated the conditions of his probation; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for correction of the judgments on the four forgery offenses. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/clineja.wpd Effect of Chapter 859 of the 2002 Public Acts on the Rate and Distribution of the Business Tax Date: August 2, 2002 Opinion Number: 02-084 http://www.tba.org/tba_files/AG/2002/OP84.pdf Use of School Building and School Property By Private Entities Date: August 5, 2002 Opinion Number: 02-085 http://www.tba.org/tba_files/AG/2002/OP85.pdf PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL! GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION! JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION! SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH! UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT! But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help |
|
© Copyright 2002 Tennessee Bar Association
|