Opinion FlashJuly 6, 2004
Volume 10 Number 128
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
JAMES WALTER YOUNG v. NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: Catherine Hughes and Joseph M. Dalton, Nashville, Tennessee for Appellant, James Walter Young. Cyrus Lucius Booker and Tara Nicole Gillespie, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee, Nashville Electric Service. Judge: WALLACE First Paragraph: In this workers' compensation appeal, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel ("Appeals Panel") affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the employee failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation. The employee has filed a motion for review pursuant to Section 50- 6-225(e)(5)(B), Tennessee Code Annotated (Supp. 2003). That statute requires that a motion for review be filed within fifteen days of the issuance of the Appeals Panel's decision. We hold that the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for review is jurisdictional and that the Court therefore is without jurisdiction to consider a motion that is not timely filed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/youngjamesw.wpd
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY APPEALS Court:TSC - Rules http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/certlist_0706.wpd
IN RE: A.M.T., Z.T.R., AND K.W.T. WITH CONCURRING OPINION Court:TCA Attorneys: Nick Perenich, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, K.L.T., the mother. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; and Elizabeth C. Driver, Office of the Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services Thomas H. Miller, Nashville, Tennessee, guardian ad litem. Judge: CLLEMENT First Paragraph: Two children were placed in the custody of the Department of Children's Services because of the mother's inability to provide stable and sanitary housing. The Department established permanency plans whereby the mother would obtain and maintain stable and sanitary housing, pay child support, attend parenting classes, work with Homemaker Services to learn how to keep the home clean, obtain a parenting assessment, and undergo counseling for her mental health issues. A third child was born while the mother's other two children were in the Department's custody. This child was born prematurely and required extensive hospitalization and was also placed in the Department's custody. The Department filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights as to all three children, which the juvenile court granted on the grounds of abandonment due to failure to pay child support, failing to comply with the permanency plans and persistent conditions. We reverse the juvenile court's finding of abandonment, but affirm the termination of parental rights based on persistent conditions and failure to comply with the permanency plan. We also affirm the juvenile court's finding that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the children. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/amt_opn.wpd CONCURRING OPINION http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/amt_con.wpd
DAVID BLURTON AND WIFE, VIRGINIA BLURTON v. GRANGE INSURANCE & CASUALTY COMPANY Court:TCA Attorneys: Robert O. Binkley, Jr., and Latosha Mason Dexter, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Grange Insurance & Casualty Company. William L. Hendricks, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, David Blurton and wife, Virginia Blurton. Judge: KIRBY First Paragraph: This is a declaratory judgment action to establish coverage under an insurance policy. The plaintiffs' home was insured by a homeowners policy with the defendant insurance company. The insurance company canceled the policy for nonpayment of the premium and claimed that it mailed a notice of cancellation to the insureds at that time. Six months later, the plaintiffs' home was damaged by fire, and they filed a claim on their policy. The insurance company denied the claim. The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to recover on the policy, asserting that they never received the cancellation notice, and that the insurance company did not properly cancel the policy. At trial, the insurance company representative testified about the company's customary routine of sending cancellation notices, and it was undisputed that the insurance agent and the mortgagees received notices. The trial court held in favor of the plaintiffs based on, among other things, its determination that the insurance company did not prove that it had mailed a cancellation notice to the plaintiffs. The insurance company now appeals. We reverse, finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that the cancellation notice was mailed to the plaintiffs. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/blurtond.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES v. K.L.K. Court:TCA Attorneys: Cara C. Welsh, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the Appellant K.L.K. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Douglas Earl Dimond, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services. Judge: SWINEY First Paragraph: This appeal by K.L.K. ("Mother") challenges the Juvenile Court's conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother's parental rights on three statutory grounds, and further challenges that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in her daughter's best interest. We conclude there was no clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother's parental rights on two of the three grounds relied upon by the Juvenile Court, but that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the third ground. However, we also conclude there was no clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is, therefore, reversed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/klk.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