Tennessee Supreme Court Decisions 2010

Bob Fannon v. City of LaFollette et al. (Concurring)
Date: December 21, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01616-SC-R11-C

Bob Fannon, Individually and as a City Councilman for the City of LaFollette v. City of LaFollotte, et al.
Date: December 21, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01616-SC-R11-CV

Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court v. F. Chris Cawood
Date: December 20, 2010
Docket Number: E2009-01957-SC-R3-BP

Michael Sanford v. Waugh & Company, Inc. et al.
Date: December 17, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02528-SC-R11-CV

Elizabeth Leanne Hudson v. Larson Douglas Hudson - Order
Date: December 17, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-01143-SC-R11-CV

State of Tennessee v. Terry Phelps
Date: December 16, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-01096-SC-R11-CD

CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Charles A. Trost, Commissioner of Revenue
Date: December 15, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-01679-SC-R11-CV

CAO Holdings, Inc. v. Charles A. Trost, Commissioner of Revenue
Date: December 13, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-01679-SC-R11-CV

Debra M. Barkes, et al. v. River Park Hospital, Inc.
Date: December 6, 2010
Docket Number: M2006-01214-SC-R11-CV

Debra M. Barkes, et al. v. River Park Hospital, Inc.
Date: November 30, 2010
Docket Number: M2006-01214-SC-R11-CV

We granted this interlocutory appeal to answer a single question of first impression: whether the Tennessee Title Pledge Act, Tenn. Code Ann. __ 45-15-101 to -120 (2000), permits a private right of action on behalf of pledgors against title pledge lenders who allegedly charged excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Title Pledge Act allegations for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We hold that the Title Pledge Act does not expressly create an individual private right of action, and plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing that the legislature intended to imply such a right. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
Date: November 29, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01758-SC-R11-CV

Dawn Brown, et al vs. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.
Date: November 29, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01758-SC-R11-CV

Dawn Brown, et al. vs. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.
Date: November 29, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01758-SC-R11-CV

Lou Ella Sherrill, et al. v. Bob T. Souder, M.D., et al.
Date: October 28, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-00741-SC-R11-CV

Joseph Davis, et al. v. Patrick J. McGuigan, et al.
Date: October 26, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02242-SC-R11-CV

Joseph Davis, et al. v. Patrick J. McGuigan, et al. (Dissenting)
Date: October 26, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02242-SC-R11-CV

Joseph Davis, et al. v. Patrick J. McGuigan, et al.
Date: October 25, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02242-SC-R11-CV

Debra M. Barkes, et al. v. River Park Hospital, Inc.
Date: October 20, 2010
Docket Number: M2006-01214-SC-R11-CV

Joann Abshure And Billy Jack Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals
Date: October 20, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-01486-SC-R11-CV

Martha Graham v. Clinton Caples et al.
Date: October 20, 2010
Docket Number: W2009-00200-SC-S09-CV

Debra M. Barkes, et al. v. River Park Hospital, Inc.
Date: October 18, 2010
Docket Number: M2006-01214-SC-R11-CV

Shelby County Health Care Corporation d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Date: October 13, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-01922-SC-R11-CV

Shelby County Health Care Corporation d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Date: October 11, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-01922-SC-R11-CV

Ana R. Padilla v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Dissenting)
Date: October 6, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-02489-SC-WCM-WC

Ana R. Padilla v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Date: October 6, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-02489-SC-WCM-WC

State of Tennessee v. H. R Hester
Date: October 5, 2010
Docket Number: E2006-01904-SC-DDT-DD

State of Tennessee v. H. R Hester
Date: October 4, 2010
Docket Number: E2006-01904-SC-DDT-DD

State of Tennessee v. John Patrick Henretta
Date: September 30, 2010
Docket Number: E2007-01750-SC-DDT-DD

State of Tennessee v. Mike Brotherton
Date: September 27, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-02016-SC-R11-CD

Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb
Date: September 23, 2010
Docket Number: W2009-00961-SC-S09-CV

Amanda Elliott v. R. Michael Cobb (Concurring)
Date: September 23, 2010
Docket Number: W2009-00961-SC-S09-CV

State of Tennessee v. Billy Ray Irick
Date: September 22, 2010
Docket Number: M1987-00131-SC-DPE-DD

State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Jordan
Date: September 22, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-01272-SC-DDT-DD

Elizabeth Sams Tuetken v. Lance Edward Tuetken
Date: September 22, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-00274-SC-R11-CV

Pugh'S Lawn Landscape Company, Inc. v. Jaycon Development Corporation
Date: September 22, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-01366-SC-R11-CV

State of Tennessee v. Ralph Byrd Cooper, Jr.
Date: September 21, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-02044-SC-R11-CD

Gerry G. Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC (Concurring)
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: E2007-02602-SC-R11-CV

Gerry G. Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: E2007-02602-SC-R11-CV

Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company - Concurring and Dissenting (Dissenting)
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV

I concur in part II of the majority opinion, holding that the reporting of an illegal activity is not an essential element of an employee's claim of retaliatory discharge for refusing to participate in an illegal activity, and, as I explain subsequently, I ultimately concur in the judgment denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Nonetheless, I write separately to dissent from the majority's decision in part I to dispense with the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), at the summary judgment stage in all employment discrimination and retaliation cases.
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV

Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company, Inc.
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV

Gary M. Gossett v. Tractor Supply Company
Date: September 20, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02530-SC-R11-CV

Candace Mullins v. State of Tennessee
Date: September 17, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-01674-SC-R11-CV

State of Tennessee v. Joel Richard Schmeiderer
Date: September 14, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01922-SC-DDT-DD

State of Tennessee v. Joel Richard Schmeiderer
Date: September 13, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01922-SC-DDT-DD

State of Tennessee v. Sheryl Ann Marshall, Jessica Pickett, and Monica Butler
Date: September 3, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02718-SC-R11-CO

State of Tennessee v. Curtis Lee Majors
Date: September 3, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01911-SC-R11-CD

Gray'S Disposal Company, Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, Davidson County, et al.
Date: August 31, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-00528-SC-R11-CV

B & B Enterprises of Wilson County, LLC, et al. v. City of Lebanon, et al.
Date: August 31, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00572-SC-R11-CV

Estate of Joyce Bell et al. v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation d/b/a The Regional Medical Center
Date: August 31, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-02213-SC-S09-CV

Don Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transport Company, Inc., et al.
Date: August 30, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00204-SC-WCM-WC

Don Nichols v. Jack Cooper Transport Company, Inc. et al.
Date: August 27, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00204-SC-WCM-WC

Billie Gail Hall, As Surviving Spouse and Administratrix of The Estate of Billy R. Hall, Deceased v. Douglas B. Haynes, Jr., M.D., et al.
Date: August 26, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-02611-SC-R11-CV

In Re Bernard T, et al.
Date: August 26, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-02803-SC-R11-PT

Patricia Henderson v. SAIA, Inc. et al.
Date: August 24, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-01723-SC-R3-WC

Patricia Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., et al.
Date: August 23, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-01723-SC-R3-WC

Jeffery Aaron Lane v. State of Tennessee
Date: July 14, 2010
Docket Number: E2007-00032-SC-R11-PC

Jeffery Aaron Lane vs. State of Tennessee
Date: July 12, 2010
Docket Number: E2007-00032-SC-R11-PC

Marcus Ward v. State of Tennessee
Date: July 7, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-01632-SC-R11-PC

Marcus Ward v. State of Tennessee
Date: July 5, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-01632-SC-R11-PC

State of Tennessee v. Ralphelle James
Date: June 24, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-01493-SC-R11-CD

Estate of Joyce Bell et al. v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation d/b/a The Regional Medical Center
Date: June 24, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-02213-SC-S09-CV

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address the standard of care that applies to a physician assistant in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff sued for injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of physician assistant Michael Maddox's failure to diagnose her condition accurately. The plaintiff did not sue Maddox, but sued the clinic which he owned and in which he practiced and Dr. Austin Adams, Maddox's supervising physician. The defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, supported by their testimony that (1) Maddox did not violate the standard of care applicable to physician assistants and (2) Dr. Adams did not violate the standard of care applicable to physicians. The plaintiff responded with her cardiologist's testimony that Maddox violated the standard of care applicable to primary care physicians. The cardiologist testified that he was not familiar with physician assistants or their supervision. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to establish that Maddox violated the professional standard of care applicable to him. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the standard of care applicable to physician assistants is the same as that applicable to physicians. We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the standard of care applicable to physician assistants is distinct from that applicable to physicians. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants is reinstated, and the case is dismissed.
Date: June 21, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01840-SC-R11-CV

Melissa Michelle Cox vs. M.A. Primary and Urgent Care Clinic et al.
Date: June 21, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01840-SC-R11-CV

Melissa Michelle Cox v. M. A. Primary and Urgent Care Clinic et al.
Date: June 21, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-01840-SC-R11-CV

State of Tennessee v. James Rae Lewter
Date: June 4, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02723-SC-R11-CD

State of Tennessee v. James Rae Lewter
Date: June 1, 2010
Docket Number: M2007-02723-SC-R11-CD

State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Brown
Date: May 27, 2010
Docket Number: W2006-02762-SC-R11-CD

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al. (Concurring)
Date: May 24, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al. (Dissenting)
Date: May 24, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula Beecher et al.
Date: May 24, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-02496-SC-S09-CV

Kimberly Powell v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al.
Date: May 24, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-00535-SC-R11-CV

In Re: Sidney J.
Date: May 10, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-01354-SC-R11-PT

Terrance Lavar Davis v. State of Tennessee (Concurring)
Date: May 7, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00011-SC-R11-HC

We granted permission to appeal in this habeas corpus case to address the legality of a pleabargained sentence requiring the defendant, being sentenced for two cocaine offenses committed in a school zone, to serve twenty-two years of a Range I sentence at "100%." The defendant alleges that his sentence is illegal because it makes no provision for the possibility of early release on parole. The trial court denied relief. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. We hold that the defendant's sentence is not illegal, and he is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Date: May 7, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00011-SC-R11-HC

We granted permission to appeal in this case in order to consider whether Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a defendant to amend his motion for new trial after the hearing on the initial motion has been conducted and an order denying the motion has been entered. In this case, newly-appointed defense counsel filed several pleadings seeking to add grounds in support of a new trial after the hearing on the original motion for new trial had been held and an order denying a new trial had been entered. The trial court considered the new grounds and subsequently entered a second order denying a new trial. The defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused to consider any issues raised after the trial court denied the original motion for new trial. As to the issues that were raised in that motion, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the defendant is not entitled to relief. We have concluded that trial courts should not permit the defense to amend its motion for new trial after the new trial hearing has been held and an order denying a new trial has been entered. Further, we have reviewed an issue the defendant properly preserved and have reviewed for plain error the issues the defendant failed to preserve but argues to this Court. We hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief on any of these issues and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Date: May 4, 2010
Docket Number: W2006-01853-SC-R11-CD

State of Tennessee v. Shawn Hatcher
Date: May 3, 2010
Docket Number: W2006-01853-SC-R11-CD

We granted this appeal to determine whether the admission into evidence of an automobile license tag number observed and written down by a bystander near the crime scene who did not appear at trial violated the defendant's right to confrontation under the federal and state constitutions. A few seconds after being robbed at her place of employment, the victim ran out of the business, told a bystander that she had been robbed, and asked the bystander to observe the tag number of the vehicle operated by the man who had just left the business. The bystander did so and then came inside the store to write the number down for the victim. The victim added other descriptive information about the robber to the same piece of paper and then turned it over to the police. The tag number was traced to a vehicle owned by the defendant, whom a jury ultimately convicted of one count of robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the written tag number was "testimonial hearsay" within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Davis v Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), and concluding that the statement's admission was plain error. Based on our objective review of the circumstances surrounding the statement, we conclude that the written tag number was "nontestimonial hearsay" that did not implicate the defendant's right of confrontation and was admissible as an excited utterance. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate defendant's conviction.
Date: April 29, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-02772-SC-R11-CD

State of Tennessee v. Darrell Franklin
Date: April 26, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-02772-SC-R11-CD

Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.
Date: April 23, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-00788-SC-R11-CV

In Re Estate of Mary Reeves Davis
Date: April 19, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00660-SC-S09-CV

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Swift
Date: March 22, 2010
Docket Number: W2007-00673-SC-R11-CD

State of Tennessee v. Thomas L. Turner, II
Date: March 19, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00482-SC-R11-CO

State of Tennessee v. Thomas L. Turner, II
Date: March 15, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00482-SC-R11-CO

Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee, et al. v. Williamson County, et al. (Dissenting)
Date: February 25, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00835-SC-R11-CV

Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee, et al. v. Williamson County, et al.
Date: February 25, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00835-SC-R11-CV

Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee, et al v. Williamson County, et al
Date: February 22, 2010
Docket Number: M2008-00835-SC-R11-CV

We granted this appeal to resolve a conflict within our Court of Appeals regarding the required contents of a trial court's written order following a proceeding to terminate parental rights where the parent losing the rights does not oppose the termination. In this case, the trial court's written order omitted findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the grounds for termination. After rejecting the father's contention that his rights were surrendered rather than terminated, the Court of Appeals held that the findings and conclusions required by statute were unnecessary because the father had consented to the petition to terminate. We agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the trial court terminated the father's parental rights. Nonetheless, we hold that the trial court's written order of termination must contain the findings and conclusions set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-1-113(c) and (k), even where the parent consents to the termination of parental rights. Because the trial court's order does not comport with the statute, we must reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for a new hearing and the preparation of a written order that complies with the statutory requirements based on the evidence introduced.
Date: February 16, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-00120-SC-R11-PT

In Re Angela E. et al
Date: February 15, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-00120-SC-R11-PT

Michael Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
Date: January 26, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00720-SC-R3-CV

Alisia Arias v. Duro Standard Products Company, et al
Date: January 18, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-02772-SC-R3-WC

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc., et al
Date: January 15, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00330-SC-R23-CQ

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc., et al (Dissenting)
Date: January 15, 2010
Docket Number: M2009-00330-SC-R23-CQ

Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee
Date: January 14, 2010
Docket Number: E2005-00566-SC-R11-PC

Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee (Concurring)
Date: January 14, 2010
Docket Number: E2005-00566-SC-R11-PC

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether the trial court erred in ruling that an indigent defendant forfeited his right to counsel at trial by telling his appointed lawyer, "I know how to get rid of you, and, at a subsequent meeting, physically assaulting his lawyer by striking the lawyer's eyeglasses with his finger. The defendant was tried by a jury pro se and convicted of aggravated rape. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court committed reversible error in ruling that the defendant had forfeited his right to appointed counsel at trial. While the defendant's physical attack on his lawyer was serious misconduct, it did not rise to the level of "extremely serious misconduct" sufficient to warrant an immediate forfeiture. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 548 (Tenn. 2000). Because the defendant was erroneously denied his fundamental constitutional right to counsel, we must reverse his conviction and remand this matter for appointment of new counsel and a new trial. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.
Date: January 12, 2010
Docket Number: W2008-00759-SC-R11-CD

Excel Polymers, LLC v. Richard Broyles
Date: January 11, 2010
Docket Number: E2008-00823-SC-WCM-WC