SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY APPEALS
Court:TSC - Rules
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/certlist_012405.wpd
HCA, INC. v. AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY & INDUSTRIAL RISK
INSURERS, ET AL.
WITH CONCURRING OPINION
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
H. Lee Barfield, L. Wearen Hughes and Tara L. Swafford, Nashville,
Tennessee, for the appellant, HCA, Inc.
Michael G. Zanic, Peter N. Flocos, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Of
Counsel.
Rebecca Levy-Sachs, Sarasota, Florida, and Andree Sophia Blumstein,
Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, American Protection Insurance
Company and Industrial Risk Insurers, et al.
Patricia Head Moskal, Nashville, Tennessee, and Anthony J. Russo,
Tampa, Florida, for the appellee, Winterthur.
Judge: CAIN
First Paragraph:
HCA, Inc. appeals the action of the trial court in granting summary
judgment to the insurer/ defendants based upon an "inventory
exclusion" provision in the policies of insurance. We reverse the
action of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/hcainc_opn.wpd
CONCURRING OPINION
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/hcainc_con.wpd
STATE EX REL. RUTH TRIVETT, ET AL. v. CITY OF McMINNVILLE
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
Amy V. Hollars, Livingston, Tennessee, George A. Burke, Sr., and
Richard A. Dorris, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Ruth
Trivett, Joe T. Boyd, William S. and Kristie B. Rogers, and Dow A.
Hayes and Bertha L. Hayes.
Michael D. Galligan and Susan N. Marttala, McMinnville, Tennessee, for
the appellee, City of McMinnville.
Judge: CLEMENT
First Paragraph:
Landowners in three areas annexed by the City of McMinnville filed
three separate quo warranto actions contesting annexation pursuant to
Tenn. Code Ann. S 6-51-101 et seq. The landowners also petitioned
Warren County to contest the proposed annexation pursuant to Tenn.
Code Ann. S 6-58-108. The County approved the landowners' petitions
and filed three additional actions to contest annexation. The trial
court dismissed the county's three actions as time barred because they
were filed more than 90 days after passage of the ordinances. The
trial court also dismissed the landowners' quo warranto actions, filed
pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. S 6-51-103, based upon a finding that two
statutory schemes for annexation were mutually exclusive and that the
landowners waived their right to file their own actions when they
petitioned the county to represent their interests pursuant to Tenn.
Code Ann. S 6-58-108. The landowners appeal dismissal of their
actions. We find that the two statutory schemes for annexation are
not mutually exclusive, the landowners have a right to contest
annexation independent from that of the county, and the period of
limitations for the landowners to file actions to contest annexation
was 90 days. Thus, we vacate the order dismissing the landowners'
actions and remand for further proceedings.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/trivettruth.wpd
MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
J. Liddell Kirk, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Michael
Dwayne Carter.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Brent C. Cherry,
Assistant Attorney General; and Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: SMITH
First Paragraph:
The petitioner, Michael Dwayne Carter, pled guilty in May of 2002 to
two counts of forgery, one count of felony theft, two counts of
misdemeanor theft, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest and one
count of burglary of a vehicle in exchange for an effective sentence
of six years and acceptance into a "Drug Court" program. The trial
court set a sentencing date. Prior to sentencing, the petitioner was
charged with several other offenses. In October of 2002, the
petitioner appeared for sentencing on the previous guilty pleas and
entered guilty pleas on four additional counts of forgery. By
agreement, the petitioner's sentences on the subsequent offenses were
considered with the prior offenses, resulting in an effective ten-year
sentence for all of the charged offenses. The petitioner subsequently
filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition. For the
following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/cartermichaeld.wpd
|
