OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 480, ET AL.
Edmund L. Carey, Jr. and George Edward Barrett, Nashville, Tennessee,
for the Appellants- Defendants, Billy D. Cullen, Eddie Mims, Isom
Folsom, and Kennie George.
James Gerard Stranch, III and Mark Allen Mayhew, Nashville, Tennessee,
for the Appellant- Defendant, Teamsters Local Union No. 480.
Christopher Johlie and Melissa Crawford Mazzeo, Chicago, Illinois, and
Kenneth A. Weber, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee-Plaintiff,
Overnite Transportation Company.
We granted this appeal to determine 1) whether a trial court's order
declining to hold an alleged contemnor in civil contempt may be
appealed; 2) whether compensatory damages for civil contempt are
available pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-105 (1980
& 2000) from a contemnor who commits an act forbidden by a trial
court's order; and, if so, 3) whether those damages may be recovered
if the violation is not ongoing at the time of the hearing. We answer
these questions in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
State of Tennessee Justice Information Tracking System State List for
Permission to Appeal
Court:TSC - Rules
MILTA D. BLANCHARD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Lorna McClusky, Memphis, Tennessee (at trial); and William D. Massey,
Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal), for the Appellant, Milta D. Blanchard.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; David H. Findley,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Jamie Kaplan, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, Milta D. Blanchard, appeals the Shelby County Criminal
Court's denial of habeas corpus relief and claims that his 1992
conviction of reckless endangerment is void because the charging
instrument did not charge the offense of reckless endangerment. We
affirm the dismissal of the petition.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEVE BRIAN HANNAH
Steve McEwen (on appeal), Mountain City, Tennessee, and Mack Garner
(at trial), District Public Defender, Maryville, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Steve Brian Hannah.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; and John H.Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney
General; and Robert C. Sawyer, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The appellant, Steve Brian Hannah, pled guilty in the Blount County
Circuit Court to one count of theft of property over $10,000, three
counts of theft of property over $1,000, and one count of possession
of marijuana with intent to resell. Pursuant to the plea agreement,
the appellant received an effective five-year sentence with the manner
of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing
hearing, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve one year in
confinement and the remainder of his sentence on community
corrections. On appeal, the appellant claims the trial court erred by
refusing to grant his request for full probation. Upon review of the
record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court but remand for entry of corrected judgments as to the thefts.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MACK T. TRANSOU
Richard L. Finney, Attorney, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Mack T. Transou
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry,
Assistant Attorney General, CriminalJustice Division; James G.(Jerry)
Woodall,District Attorney General; and JodyS. Pickens, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, Defendant Mack Transou was convicted of
aggravated burglary and rape. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences
of fifteen years for aggravated burglary and sixteen years for rape.
On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to support the jury's verdict, that the trial court erred
in admitting DNA evidence, and that his sentence was improper in light
of Blakely v. Washington. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient
to support the Defendant's convictions, the DNA evidence was properly
admitted, and that the trial court did not err in its application of
one enhancement factor when sentencing Defendant. Accordingly, we
affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.
Effect of Proposed Amendatory Language to Senate Resolution
Authorizing a Constitutional Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Game and
Date: May 11, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-080