Today's News

• Legal News (8)
• U.S. Supreme Court (1)
• Pro Bono Opportunities (2)
• Upcoming (1)
• BPR Actions (1)
• TBA CLE (1)

Today's Opinions

• TN Supreme Court (1)
• TN Workers Comp Appeals Board (2)
• TN Court of Appeals (3)
• TN Court of Criminal Appeals (3)
• 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions) (2)

Tennessee Supreme Court DISCRETIONARY APPEALS Grants & Denials List

Court: TN Supreme Court

Week of June 14, 2021 - June 18, 2021

certlist_062221.pdf

ellisa_062221.pdf

phillipst_062221.pdf

KHALED SADEEKAH v. ZAHER ABDELAZIZ D/B/A HOME FURNITURE AND MORE

Court: TN Workers Comp Appeals Board

Attorneys:

Khaleed Sadeekah, Nashville, Tennessee, employee-appellant, pro se

Courtney E. Smith, Nashville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellee, Home Furniture and More

Judge(s): CONNER

The employee reported injuring his right shoulder, wrist, and elbow when a large piece of furniture fell from a ramp and struck him. The employer denied the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting: (1) the employee was not working on the date of the alleged incident; (2) it did not employ a sufficient number of people to trigger the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law; and (3) the employee’s alleged medical conditions did not arise primarily out of a work-related accident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the employee’s request for temporary disability and medical benefits. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment in which it argued, among other things, that the employee’s evidence of medical causation was insufficient as a matter of law. In an order granting the employee’s request for an extension of time, the court set a deadline for the employee to respond to the employer’s motion and scheduled a motion hearing. Within the response deadline set by the trial court, but less than twenty days before the hearing, the employee filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and a Standard Form Medical Report (Form C-32). The employer timely objected to the notice of the employee’s intent to use a Form C-32. In its order granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court excluded the Form C-32 from evidence, and the employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed this case, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

sadeekahk_062221.pdf

DANA LEE v. JOURNEYPURE HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.

Court: TN Workers Comp Appeals Board

Attorneys:

Gordon C. Aulgur, Nolensville, Tennessee, for the employer-appellant, JourneyPure Holdings, Inc.

Benjamin R. Newman, McMinnville, Tennessee, for the employee-appellee, Dana Lee

Judge(s): HENSLEY

The employee, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) at a medical detox facility, alleged suffering a work-related mental injury after hearing a violent confrontation between a co-worker and a patient at the facility and seeing the aftermath of the altercation. The employer denied the claim, asserting the employee’s alleged mental injury was not the result of a sudden or unusual stimulus. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employee presented sufficient evidence to establish she was entitled to a panel of physicians. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

leed_062221.pdf

DAVID JERNIGAN, AS NEXT OF KIN AND SURVIVING HUSBAND TO JANE ANN JERNIGAN, DECEASED v. ROBERT EVAN PAASCHE, M.D., ET AL.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Joe Bednarz, Sr., and Joe Bednarz, Jr., Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Jernigan, as next of kin and surviving husband to Jane Ann Jernigan, deceased.

Daniel H. Rader, IV; Daniel H. Rader, III; and Lane Moore, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Robert Evan Paasche, M.D.

Raymond G. Lewallen, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, James F. Wojcik, M.D.

In this health care liability action, an initial jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Prior to the second jury trial, the trial court determined that the trial should be bifurcated such that the first phase would address only the applicable standard of care and whether the defendants deviated therefrom, and the second phase would address causation. Following completion of the standard of care phase, the jury again ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a second motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff timely appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

jernigand_062221.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JULIA HURLEY, LOUDON COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR THE 2ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

T. Scott Jones and Gena Lewis, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Julia Hurley.

Russell Johnson, District Attorney General, and Jason S. Collver, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee - Civil.

Judge(s): STAFFORD

We granted this extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the trial court considered the proper statute, the relevant facts, and the arguments advanced by the parties, we conclude that the application for an extraordinary appeal was improvidently granted. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

hurleyj_062221.pdf

IN RE ELIJAH R.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys:

Dustin D. Jones, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellant, Brian R.

Jerry J. Fabus, Jr., Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellees, Andrew W. and Amanda W.

Judge(s): MCGEE

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his son. The trial court found grounds for termination based on persistent conditions and failure to manifest a willingness and ability to assume custody or financial responsibility. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child. We reverse the trial court’s finding of persistent conditions but otherwise affirm the termination of parental rights and remand.

elijahr_062221.pdf

GARY WAYNE GARRETT v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Gary Wayne Garrett, Clifton, Tennessee, pro se appellant.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, and Charlotte Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Board of Parole.

Judge(s): MCBRAYER

An inmate petitioned for a common law writ of certiorari after the Tennessee Board of Parole denied him parole. The trial court dismissed the petition. In this appeal, the inmate argues that the Board’s action was illegal and arbitrary and that the rules and procedures in place at the time of his crimes should have governed his parole. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

garrettg_062221.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RILEY CHRISTOPHER WILBURN

Head Comment: WILLIAMS filed a concurring opinion

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

John S. Colley, Columbia, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Riley Christopher Wilburn.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; T. Austin Watkins, Assistant Attorney General; Brent A. Cooper, District Attorney General; Rebecca S. Parsons and Jessie Chandler, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): MONTGOMERY

The Defendant, Riley Christopher Wilburn, was convicted of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, by a Giles County Circuit Court jury. See T.C.A. 55-10-401 (2020). The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the basis that the indictment was fatally flawed because it alleged two offenses in a single count. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

wilburnr_062221.pdf

wilburnr_CONN_062221.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAY W. EDWARDS

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys:

Jonathan Harwell, Assistant District Public Defender (on appeal) and Jedidiah McKeehan and John D. Haines, Knoxville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Jay W. Edwards.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Danielle Jones and Sean McDermott, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WITT

Aggrieved of his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated kidnapping, assault, domestic assault, and interfering with an emergency call, the defendant, Jay W. Edwards, appeals. The defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized following his arrest, the propriety of the jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but remand the case for the entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting the merger of the defendant’s convictions in Counts 4, 5, 6, and 8.

edwardsj_062221.pdf

MEMPHIS A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; THE EQUITY ALLIANCE; FREE HEARTS; MEMPHIS AND WEST TENNESSEE AFL-CIO CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL; THE TENNESSEE STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; SEKOU FRANKLIN v. TRE HARGETT, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee; MARK GOINS, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee; AMY P. WEIRICH, in her official capacity as District Attorney General for Shelby County, Tennessee

Head Comment: READLER delivered a separate concurring opinion. MOORE delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys:

ARGUED: Matthew D. Cloutier, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

ARGUED: Danielle Lang, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Matthew D. Cloutier, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

ON BRIEF: Danielle Lang, Jonathan Diaz, Molly Danahy, Ravi Doshi, Caleb Jackson, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., Ezra D. Rosenberg, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Judge(s): MOORE, GIBBONS, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This is the third time these parties have appeared before this panel in a Tennessee election law dispute. This time, defendants appeal the district court’s order granting plaintiffs a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of a law preventing first-time voters from voting by mail. We previously denied defendants’ motion to stay the injunction pending this appeal. However, after the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, we now vacate the preliminary injunction.

memphisaphilip_062221.pdf

GARY HUGHBANKS v. STUART HUDSON, Warden

Head Comment: GIBBONS delivered a separate concurring opinion

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys:

ARGUED: David Paul Williamson, BIESER, GREER & LANDIS, LLP, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant.

ARGUED: Margaret S. Moore, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: David Paul Williamson, BIESER, GREER & LANDIS, LLP, Dayton, Ohio, Dennis L. Sipe, Marietta, Ohio, for Appellant.

ON BRIEF: Margaret S. Moore, Brenda S. Leikala, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Gary Hughbanks, a death-row prisoner in Ohio, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Hughbanks contends that the State withheld material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and he asserts that the Ohio Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that his trial counsel did not offer ineffective assistance at his mitigation hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court denying Hughbanks habeas relief.

hughbanksg_062221.pdf