Opinion FlashMarch 8, 2004Volume 10 — Number 045 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. This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
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. Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original document. Howard H. Vogel SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY APPEALS Court:TSC - Rules http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/certlist_0308.wpd WENDELL FREELS and wife, GWENETH FREELS v. GUS W. CHILTON Court:TCA Attorneys: James Frank Wilson, Wartburg, Tennessee, for Appellants. William A. Newcomb, Harriman, Tennessee, for Appellee. Judge: FRANKS First Paragraph: Plaintiffs obtained two judgments in General Sessions Court. On appeal to Circuit Court the second judgment was vacated for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/freelsw.wpd TODD HUTCHESON v. IRVING MATERIALS, INC., d/b/a IMI Court:TCA Attorneys: Mark R. Olson, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Todd Hutcheson. Martin C. Giner, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Irving Materials, Inc., d/b/a IMI. Judge: CLEMENT First Paragraph: Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and negligence alleging that concrete provided by Defendant did not meet specifications. Defendant filed counterclaim for Plaintiff's unpaid bill. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to requests for admissions. Defendant filed motion to have requests deemed admitted, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff took no remedial action until seven months later, after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment that was primarily based on the now disputed admissions. Plaintiff then filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02 motion for relief from the admissions. Trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for relief, granted Defendant's summary judgment, awarding damages against Plaintiff, and dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant. This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02, and the trial court's granting of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, rendering judgment in favor of Defendant. We affirm the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/hutchesontodd.wpd TENNESSEE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. BRIGHT PAR 3 ASSOCIATES, L.P., ET AL. Court:TCA Attorneys: John P. Konvalinka, Charles G. Fisher and Jim K. Petty, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Attorneys for Appellants, Tennessee Environmental Council, Inc., Coalition for Responsible Progress and Sandy Kurtz. Roger W. Dickson, W. Scott Parrish, Philip A. Langford and Alison Bales Martin, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Attorneys for Appellees, Bright Par 3 Associates, L.P.; Corker Group, Inc; Osborne Building Corporation and DBS Corporation. Russell W. Gray and Robert M. Steele, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Attorneys for Appellee, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust. Judge: INMAN First Paragraph: A conservation easement affecting property adjoining South Chickamauga Creek in Chattanooga was created in 1996. Property zoned for business and owned and developed by some of the Defendants is adjacent to the easement. The Plaintiffs allege that the development and construction activities of the Defendants adversely and unlawfully affect the easement. The complaint was dismissed upon a ruling that the Plaintiffs had no standing to enforce the easement, notwithstanding the language of the Conservation Easement Act, Tennessee Code Annotated S 66-9-301, et. seq., that it may be enforced by the "holder and/or beneficiaries" of the easement. The controversy centers on the meaning of the word "beneficiaries." We hold that any resident of Tennessee is a beneficiary of the easement, and thus has standing to enforce it. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/tnenv.wpd STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TERRY STEVEN BROOKSHIRE Court:TCCA Attorneys: Julie A. Rice, Knoxville, Tennessee (on appeal); and Joseph Costner and Andy Long, Maryville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Terry Steven Brookshire. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Braden H. Boucek, Assistant Attorney General; and William Reed, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WADE First Paragraph: The defendant, Terry Steven Brookshire, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. S 39-13-402. The trial court ordered a sentence of eight years. In this appeal of right, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting his videotaped statement, in which he remained silent in response to the detective's last questions, in its entirety. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/brookshireterry.wpd 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 2004 Tennessee Bar Association
|