| STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO FULLER AND MARCELLUS BETTY
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; andElizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General, for the Appellant, State of Tennessee.
Thomas Jay Norman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Antonio Fuller.
Mike J. Urquhart, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Marcellus Betty.
The defendants were convicted of numerous offenses arising from a home invasion. We grantedreview to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing each defendant‚s conviction for the especially aggravated kidnapping of one of the victims based on State v.Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). We conclude that the convictions do not violate due process under Anthony and its progeny. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court ofCriminal Appeals in part and reinstate the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions.
WILL HENDERSON AND EXPRESS REFUNDS, INC., d/b/aHENDERSON TAX SERVICE v. CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC., JANICE FULLILOVE, AND BRUCE DEMPS
Stephen R. Leffler, for the appellants Will Henderson and Express Refunds, Inc., d/b/a HendersonTax Service.
Louis P. Britt and Keith R. Thomas, for the appellees Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., JaniceFullilove, and Bruce Demps.
This is a defamation case. After listening to a local talk radio show, the plaintiffs filed alawsuit against the defendants, asserting that the defendants had broadcast defamatory material on the radio show concerning the plaintiffs‚ business practices. There was no recording of the talkradio show. In a bench trial, many witnesses testified about statements made on the show. After the trial, the trial court found that there were so many different versions, there was no way todetermine what was actually said on the radio program. The trial court concluded that, assuming unflattering statements were made, they did not damage the plaintiffs‚ reputations. The trial courtalso concluded that, even if the statements made were defamatory, the plaintiffs did not prove any injury. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate againstthe trial court‚s decision.
STANLEY ARTHUR LAWSON v. VONDA LEA (LAWSON) MATTOX
Mitchell Keith Siskin, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Vonda Lea (Lawson) Mattox.
Gary Wilton Nutt, Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, for the appellee, Stanley Arthur Lawson.
The mother has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 application for an extraordinary appeal from an exparte Emergency Temporary Parenting Plan Order entered by the Chancery Court for Lawrence County on September 6, 2005. The mother asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter theorder because it had transferred the case to the Chancery Court for Rutherford County in 2001. The father now agrees that the trial court lacks jurisdiction. We grant the application for anextraordinary appeal and vacate the Emergency Temporary Parenting Plan Order.
BRENDA AND STANLEY MORRISON v. CITIZEN STATE BANK
Hallie H. McFadden, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, Brenda and Stanley Morrison.
J. Harvey Cameron, Jasper, Tennessee, for the appellee, Citizen State Bank.
This is the third action between Stanley Morrison and Citizen State Bank concerning a series ofpromissory notes and security agreements. In the first action, Citizen State Bank filed a civil warrant in General Sessions Court against Stanley Morrison to recover a deficiency judgmentand repossess a truck that was collateral on a series of loans. The bank obtained a default judgment against Morrison and repossessed the truck when Morrison failed to appear in court.Morrison failed to timely appeal the default judgment. Thereafter, Morrison and his wife filed this action challenging the validity of the default judgment and seeking damages for fraud,misrepresentation, and conversion of property, contending four of six promissory notes and security agreements that the judgment was based upon were forgeries. The trial court held thisaction was barred by res judicata and dismissed it on summary judgment. We affirm the dismissal of this action on the basis of collateral estoppel.
MELVIN PERRY v.BRUCE WESTBROOKS, WARDEN, AND THE WEST TENNESSEE STATE PENITENTIARY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Melvin Perry, appellant, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Arthur Crownover, II, Nashville,Tennessee, for the appellees, Bruce Westbrooks, Warden, and the West Tennessee State Penitentiary Disciplinary Board.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a prison inmate. The petitioner prisoner wasfound guilty on the charge of „failure to participateš in work as instructed by a prison official. He lost his prison job and was sentenced to a brief period of segregation and a $5.00 fine. Afterexhausting his administrative appeals, he filed an application for a writ of certiorari in the trial court, naming as respondents the warden and the disciplinary board. The trial court granted therespondents‚ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The petitioner now appeals. We reverse and remand to the trial court for issuance ofthe writ.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL. v.MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kenneth S. Schrupp, Nashville, Tennessee, Paul Owens, Linda B. Foster, Atlanta, Georgia, forthe appellants, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America f/k/a The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, and The PhoenixInsurance Company.
Eugene N. Bulso, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Moore & Associates, Inc.
The insurer of a general construction contractor brought an action for a declaration that it had noduty to defend or indemnify the contractor against the claims raised against the contractor in ademand for arbitration. The Chancery Court for Sumner County, Tennessee, Judge Tom E. Gray, granted summary judgment to the contractor, holding that the insurer, as a matter of law,had a duty to defend the contractor in the arbitration. The court reserved ruling on whether theinsurer had a duty to indemnify the contractor for damages paid as a result of the arbitration settlement until after the arbitration proceeding. This Court affirms the trial court‚s judgment inall respects.
FREDERICK MARTIN UMANS v. DEBORAH LYNNE UMANS
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
Appellee, Deborah Umans, filed a Petition to Rehear her request for attorney‚s feesincurred on appeal. On August 23, 2005, this Court entered its Memorandum Opinion denying Mr. Umans‚s appeal regarding child support, alimony, and attorney‚s fees awarded Ms. Umansby the trial court. Mr. Umans was successful only in appealing the trial court‚s finding of criminal contempt. The opinion did not address Ms. Umans‚s request for attorney‚s feesincurred on appeal.
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR