2nd Annual Intellectual Property Law Forum
Presented by the TBA Intellectual Property Law Section.
April 28, 29 - Tennessee Bar Center, Nashville

The program begins April 28 with afternoon presentations on the basics
of intellectual property law. On April 29, a panel of speakers —
including the Hon. David Sams, Chief Judge of the Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board — will address a wide range of advanced topics, primarily
geared to the intellectual property specialist. Ten hours of CLE
credit (including one hour of ethics) will be provided for those who
attend the entire forum. For anyone with an interest in this dynamic
area, it is not an event to be missed.

Today's Opinions: April 25, 2005
Volume 11 — Number 077
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.
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
02 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel
00 New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
04 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
03 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Attorney General (PDF format)
00 New Judicial Ethics Opinion(s)
00 New Formal Ethics Opinion(s) from the Board of Professional Responsibility

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 or need to obtain a password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi.

Here's how you can obtain full-text version. We recommend you download the Opinions to your computer and then open them from there. • Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This should give you the option to download the original document. If not, you may need to right-click on the URL to get the option to save the file to your computer. • Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink. This option will allow you to view and save a plain-text version of the opinion. • Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink. This option will allow you to download the original version of the opinion.

Howard H. Vogel
Knoxville, Tennessee
Editor-in-Chief, TBALink


JOHN BARDEN v. ALPHA BUILDING CORPORATION, ET AL.

Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel

Attorneys:                          

Carol M. Hayden, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellants, Alpha
Building Corporation and Maryland Casualty Company

Carl Wyatt, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellee John Barden

Judge: BROWN

First Paragraph:

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special
Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance
with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50- 6-225(e)(3) (Supp. 2003) for
hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court, findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court found the employee proved that his
injury was compensable. We affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2005/bardenj42505.pdf

EUGENE STUBBLEFIELD v. CITY OF MILLERSVILLE, ET AL.

Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel

Attorneys:                          

Jennifer Orr Locklin and WilliamN.Bates, Nashville, Tennessee, for
appellants, Cityof Millersville and TML Risk Management Pool, Inc.

Judy Schechter, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellee, Eugene
Stubblefield.

Judge: INMAN

First Paragraph:

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special
Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance
with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the
Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
plaintiff re-injured his back while operating a jackhammer allegedly
in violation of his lifting limitations. The thrust of the defense
centered on the asserted misconduct of the plaintiff. The trial judge
disallowed the defense. We affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/2005/stubblefielde42505.pdf

TIMOTHY L. DOSS v. AMY J. DOSS

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Christine Mahn Sell, Valerie H.Richardson, and B.Elizabeth Dickson,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the Appellant Amy J. Doss.

Timothy L. Doss, pro se Appellee.

Judge: SWINEY

First Paragraph:

On April 7, 2003, Amy J. Doss ("Mother") filed divorce and custody
proceedings in the Circuit Court for Lake County, Illinois (the
"Illinois Court"). On that same day, Timothy L. Doss ("Father") filed
divorce and custody proceedings in the Family Court for Rhea County,
Tennessee (the "Tennessee Court"). Both the Illinois Court and the
Tennessee Court have asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the
custody proceedings and inconsistent orders have been entered
regarding child support and visitation. The issues on this Tenn. R.
App. P. 10 interlocutory appeal by Mother center around whether the
Tennessee Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the custody
proceedings and, if so, whether it properly exercised that
jurisdiction. We conclude that: 1) the Tennessee Court did not have
"home state" subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) even if the Tennessee
Court had "significant connection" subject matter jurisdiction, it
nevertheless should have declined to exercise that jurisdiction
because the Illinois Court clearly is the more appropriate forum.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Tennessee Court with regard
to the custody proceedings.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/dosst42505.pdf

FLAUTT AND MANN, a Partnership v. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEMPHIS,
ET AL.

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Memphis, TN, for Appellants

William H. Fisher, III, Valerie F. Fisher, Memphis, TN, for Appellee

Judge: HIGHERS

First Paragraph:

This appeal involves protracted litigation concerning the zoning of a
parcel of land located in Memphis, Tennessee. After a bridge, which
provided the only access to the property, washed away, the landowner
planned to install and maintain billboards on the subject parcel by
helicopter. The landowner initially applied to the Memphis City
Council to have the subject parcel re-zoned from agricultural uses to
commercial uses. The Memphis City Council rejected the landowner's
application. The landowner filed a petition for review by common law
writ of certiorari and an action for declaratory judgment in the
circuit court. The circuit court entered an order reversing the
decision of the Memphis City Council and remanding the case to the
Council for a new hearing. Upon remand, the Memphis City Council once
again rejected the landowner's application. The landowner filed a
petition for contempt in the circuit court alleging the Council
violated the court's order on remand. The trial court found that,
while the Memphis City Council violated the court's order in every
respect, it was not in willful contempt of the court's order because
it relied on the erroneous advice of its lawyer in interpreting the
order. The trial court then proceeded to remand the case to the
Memphis City Council once more for a new hearing. The City filed an
appeal. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case
to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/flautt42505.pdf

CLAY MANLEY v. THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD,
CONNECTICUT

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Arthur E. McClellan, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the appellant, The
Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut.

John R. Jacobson and William D. Martin, Nashville, Tennessee, and
Taylor A. Cates, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Clay Manley.

Judge: FARMER

First Paragraph:

This appeal arises from a claim for homeowner's insurance benefits. In
1998, a tornado damaged a home in East Nashville. The owner of the
home held an insurance policy that provided coverage for guaranteed
replacement cost above the policy limit, once repairs had been
completed. After the insurer had paid the owner the actual cash value
of the damage, the owner sold the home to the plaintiff for $80,000.
Along with the sale, the owner assigned to the plaintiff the rights to
any claims or proceeds under the insurance policy. The plaintiff,
without making any repairs, began a process of attempting to collect
supplemental proceeds under the policy. After the insurer failed to
respond to the plaintiff's demand for an appraisal, the plaintiff
submitted two sworn statements in proof of loss, claiming a total of
$405,072.93 in replacement costs. The insurer rejected the plaintiff's
proofs of loss, and this suit followed. Following a jury trial, the
trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for
$405,072.93, in addition to $35,000 in damages for bad faith. Because
we find that the judgment entered by the trial court was the product
of an inconsistent jury verdict, we vacate and remand.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/manleyc42505.pdf

WANDA SHAW v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Emma L. Cole of Memphis For Appellant, Wanda Shaw

Brian L. Kuhn, Shelby County Attorney; Robert B. Rolwing, Senior
Assistant County Attorney, For Appellee, Shelby County Government

Judge: CRAWFORD

First Paragraph:

Shelby County employee appealed denial of review by the County's Civil
Service Merit Board following elimination of her position. The Shelby
County Circuit Court affirmed the denial of a review by the Board
because employee's position was eliminated due to loss of funding as
opposed to disciplinary action against her. Employee appeals. We
affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/shaww42505.pdf

LARRY BOHANNON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Britton Joshua Allan, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Renee W.Turner,
Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

First Paragraph:

The Petitioner, Larry Bohannon, appeals from the trial court's
dismissal of his petition seeking postconviction relief. The State has
filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's
denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. The petition was filed outside the applicable statute of
limitations and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the
dismissal of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/bohannonl42505.pdf

CARLOS RICE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Carlos Rice, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Seth P. Kestner,
Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

First Paragraph:

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the
judgement of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court
of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Carlos Rice, appeals the trial
court's denial of post-conviction relief. The petition was filed
outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore,
time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/ricec42505.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS TATE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

James O.Marty (on appeal) and Steven M.Temple (at trial), Memphis,
Tennessee, for the appellant, Curtis Tate.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Linda Kirklen and Paul Hagerman, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: OGLE

First Paragraph:

The appellant, Curtis Tate, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby
County Criminal Court of second degree murder. Following a hearing,
the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty years incarceration
in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant
contends that (1) "[p]lain error exists in the record in that the two
material and crucial witnesses were not called at trial"; (2) the
trial court's instructions to the jury were incomplete and misleading;
(3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight; (4) the
evidence was insufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction; and
(5) the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon review
of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/tatec42505.pdf

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
Feel free to forward this Opinion Flash on to anyone you know of with an e-mail address.

GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
See the intrsuctions at the beginning of this edition of Opinion Flash.

JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!
While Opinion Flash is a free service of the Tennessee Bar Association, you must be a member of the Tennessee Bar Association in order to access the full text of the opinions or enjoy the many other features of TBALink.

To join the TBA go to: http://www.tba.org/join_bar.mgi

SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion Flash free each day by e-mail? Anyone, whether a TBA member or not, is welcome to subscribe ... it's free! Sign up for text or HTML version.

Visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi

UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi

TBALink HomeContact UsPageFinderWhat's NewHelp

© Copyright 2005 Tennessee Bar Association