New online CLE courses will help you meet 2005 requirements Many court cases are decided, not at trial, but at pretrial hearings on search and seizure questions. Learn what the latest cases hold in this important area of criminal procedure from this new course. Also new is a course that addresses the effect of the adoption of comparative fault on those common law tort doctrines that you learned in Torts 101. Scenarios and hypotheticals will raise issues and illustrate the problems that can arise when an important change in the law occurs by judicial fiat, leaving other doctrines uncertainly affected or even abrogated. http://www.tnbaru.com/coursecatalog.php#    TODAY'S OPINIONS: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 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. 02 - TN Supreme Court 00 - TN Worker's Comp Appeals 00 - TN Supreme Court - Rules 02 - TN Court of Appeals 00 - TN Court of Criminal Appeals 00 - TN Attorney General Opinions 00 - Judicial Ethics Opinions 00 - Formal Ethics Opinions - BPR 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 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHEILA TERESA GAYE BOBADILLA and BENJAMIN BERNAL BOBADILLA CORRECTED OPINION - ORIGINALLY ISSUED 11-30-2005 Court: TSC Attorneys: J. Russell Pryor, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Benjamin B. Bobadilla.T. Wood Smith, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Sheila Bobadilla. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General;Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: BIRCH We accepted review of this cause under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 11, inorder to address a question properly preserved and certified pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 37(b)(2). The question, as certified, is: “Whetherthe search warrant and accompanying affidavit that led to the search of the defendant’s residence violated the United States and Tennessee Constitutions as well as Tennessee Rule ofCriminal Procedure 41(c), so as to render all of the evidence seized pursuant thereto, illegal and inadmissible.” In our painstaking review of the record, we have determined that the search warrant was notissued in accordance with the requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 41(c). Thus, we hold the search conducted pursuant to the warrantunreasonable and the evidence obtained as a result inadmissible. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, affirming the trial court’s judgment on other grounds is reversed,and the indictment in this case is dismissed. CORRECTED OPINION http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/bobadillas120705.pdf SUNIL KAWATRA v. NEELAM MANTRI KAWATRA Court: TSC Attorneys: Robert G. Ingrum, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Sunil Kawatra. Alan Dale Johnson, Alfred H. Knight, Mary Arline Evans, and Tyree Bryson Harris IV, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Neelam Mantri Kawatra. Judge: HOLDER This case involves a petition to relocate pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108 (2001). To determine whether the parties in a relocation case are spending substantially equal intervals of time with their child, the “time actually spent” with each parent should be computed in units of a day. The number of days to be credited to each parent should be based upon an examination of the residential schedule, additional time not reflected in the residential schedule, and adjustments for any violations to the residential schedule. To allocate a day for which both parents claim credit, the trial court should examine the hours that each parent actually spent with the child on that day, the activities in which each parent participated with the child, the resources that each parent expended on the child’s behalf, and any other factor that the trial court considers to be relevant. After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the parties were not spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child. Because the mother was spending a greater amount of time with the child, she should be permitted to relocate with the child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108(d) (2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/kawatas120705.pdf GREGORY NORMAN v. THOMAS C. COLEMAN, JR. Court: TCA Attorneys: Gregory Norman, Jamestown, Tennessee, appellant, Pro Se. Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Thomas C. Coleman, Jr. Judge: COTTRELL Former client appeals summary judgment dismissing his malpractice claim against former attorney and refusal of trial judge hearing malpractice case by interchange to grant recusal request. We affirm the trial court on both issues. http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/normang120705.pdf BYRON C. WELLS v. A. C. WHARTON, JR., ET AL. Court: TCA Attorneys: Byron C. Wells, Memphis, TN, pro se Brian L. Kuhn, Shelby County Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Appellees Judge: HIGHERS In this appeal, we are asked to determine multiple issues including whether the chancery court erred when it granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff contends that there were numerous claims made in his complaint sufficient to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, acting pro se, filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand. http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/wellsb120705.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 instructions 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.tba2.org/op_flash.php UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT! But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba2.org/op_flash.php TBALink Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help © Copyright 2005 Tennessee Bar Association