Judicial evaluation forms available Wednesday

The evaluation reports on the 25 appellate court judges who are seeking retention in the Aug. 3 election will be posted Wednesday afternoon on the Administrative Office of the Courts website. The judges being evaluated include three members of the Tennessee Supreme Court (two are retiring); the 12 members of the Tennessee Court of Appeals; and the 12 members of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The final report from the process will be published statewide the first Sunday in July.

http://www.tncourts.gov

TODAY'S OPINIONS
Click on the category of your choice to view summaries of today’s opinions from that court, or other body. A link at the end of each case summary will let you download the full opinion in PDF format. To search all opinions in the TBALink database, go to our OpinionSearch page. If you have forgotten your password or need to obtain a password, you can look it up on TBALink at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi.

01 - TN Supreme Court
00 - TN Worker's Comp Appeals
00 - TN Supreme Court - Rules
27 - TN Court of Appeals
03 - 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

SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY APPEALS Grants & Denials List

Court: TSC

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TSC/2006/certlist_022706.pdf


SANDRA ELAINE HELTON (BUSCHER) v. SHAUN EDWARD HELTON

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Jeffrey L. Levy, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Shaun Edward Helton.

David W. Garrett, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Sandra Elaine Helton (Buscher).

Judge: LEE

This post-divorce case presents the question of whether the trial court correctly interpreted and enforced a provision in the parties' marital dissolution agreement (MDA) providing that if Sandra Elaine Buscher relocated from Davidson County or counties adjacent to Davidson, she agreed to "pay all expenses necessary for Husband [Shaun Edward Helton] to maintain the same visitation" with their child as originally agreed in the MDA. On remand from this court, the trial court allowed Ms. Buscher to relocate with the child to Jackson, Mississippi, and awarded Mr. Helton visitation comparable to that which he originally received. The trial court, however, did not require Ms. Buscher to pay for Mr. Helton's costs of traveling to Mississippi to exercise all of his visitation. Mr. Helton appealed. We modify the trial court's judgment to provide that Ms. Buscher shall be responsible for such costs as are reasonable and necessary for Mr. Helton to exercise the same amount of visitation as before Ms. Buscher's move, pursuant to the MDA's terms. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/heltonsandra_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. T. DAVID BAKER, SR. ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, T. David Baker, Sr. and Shirley Baker.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWBakertd_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. FRANK A. BASS

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Frank A. Bass and Mary A. Bass.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWBassFA_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. CHARLES CARTER ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Charles Carter and Brenda Carter.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWCarterC_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. CHARLES A. DESHLER & MARTHA A. DESHLER JOINT CARING TRUST ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Charles A. Deshler & Martha A. Deshler Joint Caring Trust, Charles A. Deshler, and Martha A. Deshler.

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWDeshlerCA_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. RONALD R. DUNN

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Ronald R. Dunn and Brenda A. Dunn, Castalian Springs, Tennessee, not represented on appeal.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWDunnRR_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. MARTHA JO LAW FENIMORE

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, Martha Jo Law Fenimore.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWFenimoreMJL_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. PATRICIA G. GREEN

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Patricia G. Green, Portland, Tennessee, not represented on appeal.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWGreenPG_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. BERTON GREGORY ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Berton Gregory and Willodean Gregory.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWGregoryB_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. ROBERT G. INGRUM ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Robert G. Ingrum and James L. Tucker, Gallatin, Tennessee, not represented on appeal.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWIngrumRG_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. CALVIN KIRKHAM ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Calvin Kirkham and Wanda Kirkham.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWKirkhamC_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. HAROLD B. KNIGHT ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Harold B. Knight and Judith Knight.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWKnightHB_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. JAMES LASSITER ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, James Lassiter and Joanne Lassiter.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWLassiterJ_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. LARRY LAW ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Larry Law and Martha Law.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWLawL_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. LORRIE MARCUM

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, Lorrie Marcum.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWMarcumL_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. FRED THOMAS McKEE ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Fred Thomas McKee and Mary McKee.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWMcKeeFT_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. CAMILLA JEAN PALMER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary A. Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, The Camilla Jean Palmer Revocable Living Trust.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWPalmerCJ_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. DENVER L. PRYOR

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, Denver L. Pryor.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWPryorDL_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. RUFUS REESE ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Rufus Reese and Richard Reese, Jr.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWReeseR_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. MICHAEL RIPPY ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Michael Rippy and Theresa Rippy.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWRippyM_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. WILLIAM SHERRON ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, William Sherron and Elizabeth Sherron.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWSherronW_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. DAVID SMITH ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, David Smith, Phillip Smith, and Mike Smith.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWSmithD_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. JAMES R. STEPHENSON ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, James R. Stephenson and Debbie Stephenson.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWStephensonJR_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. NIKKI WALLACE ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellees, Nikki Wallace and Alexis Wallace.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWWallaceN_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. FRED WALTER ET AL.

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Fred Walter and Ada Mai Walter, Portland, Tennessee, not represented on appeal.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWWalterF_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. REBECCA WARREN

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, Rebecca Warren.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWWarrenR_022706.pdf


MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY v. LINDA SCOTT WEBSTER

Court: TCA

Attorneys:

Lela M. Hollabaugh and Michael S. Mizell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

Frank M. Fly, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Gary Allen Davis, Hot Springs, North Carolina, for the appellee, Linda Scott Webster.

Judge: KOCH

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company's efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company's complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company's complaints.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2006/MWWebsterLS_022706.pdf


CARLITO D. ADAMS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

Carlito Adams, Whiteville, Tennessee, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General; and William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WOODALL

The petitioner, Carlito D. Adams, was convicted in 1995 of two counts of felony murder and two counts of attempted felony murder, with the latter being reversed and dismissed. See State v. Carlito D. Adams, No. 02C01-9608-CR-00267, 1997 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1247 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 1997), perm. to appeal denied concurring in results only (Tenn. Nov. 9, 1998). In November 1999, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which, according to the petitioner, was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Additionally, he alleges that this court denied, on January 25, 2002, his motion to reconsider the dismissal. On January 19, 2005, he filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, claiming that a new right, which he sought to assert, had been recognized in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and that there was new scientific evidence establishing his actual innocence. The post-conviction court denied the motion to reopen, and the petitioner appealed. Following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2006/AdamsCarl_022706.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID IVY
Corrected Opinion


Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

W. Mark Ward, Tony N. Brayton, Garland Erguden, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, David Ivy.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Angele M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, and Amy Weirich, Assistant District Attorney General, and Gerald Harris, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, Stateof Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

The Appellant, David Ivy, appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the June 2001 murder of Lakisha Thomas. On January 10, 2003, a Shelby County jury found Ivy guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the juryunanimously found the presence of two statutory aggravating circumstances, i.e., Ivy had previously been convicted of a violent felony offense and the murder was committed to avoid prosecution. The jury further determined that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved thesentencing verdict. Ivy appeals, as of right, presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator, (2) whether the trial court improperly permitted hearsay statements of the victim to be admitted into evidence, (3) whether the trial court erred by impaneling an anonymous jury, (4) whether the trial courterred in refusing to permit the defense, during closing argument, to discuss the rationale behind the hearsay exclusion, (5) whether the trial court erred by preventing defense counsel from arguing "residual doubt" as a non-statutory mitigating circumstance, (6) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence that Ivy had previously been charged with first degree murder, (7) whether the trial court's instruction that Ivy's prior offenses were offenses whose statutory elements involved the use of violence violated his right to trial by jury, (8) whether the death penalty imposed in this case violated due process because the indictment failed to allege the aggravators relied upon by the State, (9) whether the trial court erred inrefusing to answer the jury's questions as to the consequences if they were unable to reach an unanimous verdict as to punishment, and (10) whether Tennessee's death penalty statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm Ivy's conviction and sentence of death.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2006/IvyDavid_022706.pdf


STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL NEIL LAURENT

Court: TCCA

Attorneys:

James O. Martin, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Paul Neil Laurent.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, District Attorney General; and Bernard McEvoy, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: SMITH

The appellant, Paul Neil Laurent, was indicted in 2003 for twelve counts of various crimes allegedly committed against his step-daughter and daughter. After a bench trial, the appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, attempted aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sexualbattery, two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count of attempted child neglect. The appellant received a total effective sentence of seventeen years. The appellant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred by denying the motion for judgment of acquittal and motion to dismiss regarding the charge of aggravated kidnapping; (2) the trial court erred in determining that the appellant was guilty of attempted aggravated sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery because the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2006/laurentpaul_022706.pdf

HAYES DISSENTING
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCCA/2006/laurentpaul_dis_022706.pdf


TODAY'S NEWS

Legal News
BPR Actions
Online CLE
TBA Member Services

Legal News
State halts driving certificate program
The state is immediately halting its certificate for driving program for immigrants who can't prove they are in the country legally, interim Department of Safety Commissioner Gerald Nicely tells the Nashville City Paper.
Read the full story in the Nashville City Paper
Memphis team reaches moot court quarterfinals
A three-student team from the Cecil C Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis advanced to the quarter final round at the recent National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition at Pace Law School. One of the team members, Marci Harris, was named Best Oralist in both the first and second of the preliminary rounds. The TBA's Environmental Law Section is a sponsor of the team, which also included students Carly Gallagher and Hayden Lawyer.

Assistant running for DA post in Chattanooga
Assistant District Attorney Steve Crump is running for the 10th District Attorney General post long held by Jerry Estes, who is not seeking reelection.
Read more about Crump in the Chattanoogan.com
UGA takes moot court title
The University of Georgia School of Law took top honors at the 16th Annual National First Amendment Moot Court Competition at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. The runner-up team was from the University of California, Davis School of Law.
Read the full results
BPR Actions
Knoxville lawyer suspended
Knoxville lawyer Jennifer M. Johnson was suspended for 18 months on Feb. 21 after entering a conditional plea of guilty with the Board of Professional Responsibility to resolve a petition for discipline.
Read the BPR release
Online CLE
New course looks at key 2005 Tennessee Supreme Court decisions
What were the major holdings of the Tennessee Supreme Court during 2005 and what do they mean to your and your practice? Find out in Virginia Mayo's latest online course from TennBarU. The editor of M. Lee Smith's Tennessee Attorneys Memo, Mayo offers a detailed look at issues ranging from the liability of a diocese for the conduct of a former priest to the duty of convenience store employees not to sell gas to obviously intoxicated individuals.
Register or find out more
TBA Member Services
Discounts from Office Depot
Are you saving yet? Sign up for the TBA-Office Depot program and begin saving. TBA Members receive significant discounts on office supplies from Office Depot.
Find out more

 
 
UNSUBSCRIBE TO TBAToday? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba2.org/tbatoday/unsub_tbatoday.php

TBALink HomeContact UsPageFinderWhat's NewHelp
 
 
© Copyright 2006 Tennessee Bar Association