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
|
