Charles Gelbert Neese

In Ball v. United States, a federal prisoner moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 1981 criminal sentence, claiming that his retained trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment by giving false advice about a rejected plea bargain and making poor strategic decisions at trial regarding impeachment by prior convictions. The district court dismissed the motion summarily after preliminary review, holding that the claims failed to meet the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington requiring both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court reasoned that defendants have no constitutional right to plea bargain or to avoid trial, that counsel's actions were within the range of competent assistance and trial strategy, and that the prior appellate ruling had already confirmed the trial was fundamentally fair, making any claimed errors insufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involved claims by the plaintiffs against a defendant, later adding the county and sheriff as parties, arising from an incident on February 10, 1981. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims, such as assault and battery, because the federal claim, if proven, would provide adequate remedies making additional state claims duplicative. The court also held that the county and sheriff had not waived their statute of limitations defense under T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a), which was properly raised in the pretrial order and motions, and that the claims against them were time-barred since the amended complaint adding them was filed after the one-year limit and did not relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) as it added new parties rather than correcting a misnomer.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves multiple defendants, including Howard Franklin Watts, Sandy White Jr., Eddie Earl Arms, and others like Mr. Stinson, facing federal criminal conspiracy charges in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The court addressed numerous pretrial motions, including requests for discovery and inspection, transfers to the Eastern District of North Carolina, continuances, bills of particulars, and suppression of evidence. The court denied the discovery motions as premature, moot, and overbroad under precedents like United States v. Short; denied transfers under Rule 21(b) because defendants failed to show a substantial balance of inconvenience outweighing the burdens of split trials; and rejected other motions like continuances as premature or lacking justification under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Core reasoning emphasized adherence to procedural rules, avoidance of duplicative proceedings, and the defendants' failure to meet required showings for relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a diversity action by Jabco, Inc. against the Town of Greeneville, Tennessee and Boyd, Arthur & Gass, Architects, arising from a construction project and claims including negligence, vicarious liability, and failure to obtain required all-risk insurance under the contract. The court accepted a magistrate's recommendation and denied the Town's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It granted summary judgment to the architects because the plaintiff did not produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact or cite supporting state law authority. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the Town's cross-motion only on the vicarious liability claim under respondeat superior for an independent contractor, but denied it on the insurance claim due to a factual dispute over contractual intent, and denied the defendants' request for a late jury trial after waiver.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the plaintiff against defendant Harry Parmley, a police officer, concerning events surrounding her arrest, incarceration, and alleged rape. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel non-party law enforcement agencies to produce witness statements, noting that Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to parties and that a subpoena under Rule 45 would be the appropriate mechanism instead. It granted some of the plaintiff's exceptions to the pretrial order, disallowed her objection to certain exhibits on grounds that she had opened the door to evidence about the circumstances of her arrest and that the exhibits were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because a pretrial stipulation established that he had acted under color of state law. The court also amended the pretrial order to add a contested issue regarding potential body searches.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved an indigent defendant charged with mail theft who requested court-funded expert services, including a questioned-documents analyst, fingerprint expert, and psychiatric evaluation, due to financial inability to obtain them for his defense. The court found the services necessary under the Criminal Justice Act and authorized their provision, while also ordering a mental competency examination under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 after defense counsel raised concerns about the defendant's hospitalizations and ability to assist in his defense. Following the examination, the court determined the defendant was competent to stand trial, with the finding not to prejudice any insanity defense or be disclosed to the jury, and granted a continuance to allow counsel time to prepare. The court further allowed the defense to access or obtain additional psychiatric expert services at government expense for trial preparation without reporting to the court or prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a civil action by the United States to judicially enforce an IRS administrative summons under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a) against respondent Acie E. Puckett regarding the tax affairs of corporate taxpayer Fedder’s, Inc. The central dispute concerned Puckett’s demand to have up to ten observers present during his examination by IRS agents. The court enforced the summons and ordered that Puckett could have up to ten passive, silent observers if he executed a written consent under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(c) authorizing disclosure of return information; without such consent, only IRS employees, a stenographer, Puckett, corporate officers, and counsel would be present. The court also addressed procedural matters, finding excusable neglect in the late filing of Puckett’s notice of appeal due to nonpayment of the filing fee and canceling a show-cause hearing. The reasoning centered on balancing the IRS’s statutory duty to inquire into tax liabilities with the summonee’s limited right to observers, while preventing interference with the examination process.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

AFG Industries sued TVA and Holston Electric Cooperative for damages from two brief electrical service interruptions to its plant, claiming TVA was negligent in maintaining a utility pole. The court dismissed the negligence claim against TVA, holding that no statute, regulation, or case law imposes a legal duty on TVA to supply uninterrupted power or to prevent such short outages, and that creating such a duty would improperly encroach on Congress's constitutional authority over federal property. The court allowed AFG to amend its complaint to add claims for breach of an implied contract or as a third-party beneficiary of TVA's contracts with Holston.

torts & liabilityfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The plaintiff corporation sued the defendant partnership for breach of contract, seeking damages and invoking federal court jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court examined the complaint and found the jurisdictional allegations defective, as the claimed amount included interest (which cannot count toward the $10,000 minimum) and failed to allege the citizenship of each individual partner to establish complete diversity between all opposing parties. The court therefore abated the action without reaching other grounds for dismissal, allowing the plaintiff time to amend its pleadings to properly invoke jurisdiction.

procedure

The case concerned a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by representatives of a decedent allegedly killed by excessive force from Tennessee law-enforcement officers acting under color of state law or local ordinance, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court determined that the complaint was defective because it failed to include a short and plain statement of the claim and jurisdictional grounds as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and (e), did not allege specific facts showing a constitutional deprivation, and omitted necessary parties such as the decedent's minor children who held joint rights under Tennessee wrongful death statutes. Accordingly, the court dismissed claims by certain plaintiffs for failure to state a claim, ordered joinder of the additional children as parties, and the action was ultimately dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the appearing parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii).

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case United States v. Rainbolt involved the federal government seeking to recover a $1,080 overpayment on an education loan made to veteran Dale K. Rainbolt, who had defaulted by failing to appear in court. The plaintiff moved for a default judgment directly from the court under Rule 55(b)(2), but the court denied this application without prejudice. The core reasoning was that since the claim was for a sum certain and the defendant was not an infant, incompetent, or subject to the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, the judgment should be entered by the clerk upon request under Rule 55(b)(1) instead, as supported by the applicable statutes allowing recovery of such government funds.

procedurefederal power

The case involved a criminal defendant who filed a pretrial motion in limine to bar the government from introducing evidence or testimony about alleged conversations with a government agent regarding unrelated items such as hot guns, stolen guns, jewelry, and a book joint. The court denied the motion without prejudice to raising objections at trial if the evidence is offered. The core reasoning was that orders in limine are disfavored in the circuit, with the preferred approach being to address admissibility questions as they arise during trial, because the court could not yet determine whether the evidence would be offered, its purpose, its potential admissibility, or any prejudicial effect.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Black plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Green, who alleged that white defendants including a sheriff, deputies, and private individuals violated their Fourth Amendment rights by firing on their home with various weapons following Klan-related threats, forcing them to flee. The court declared that the defendants, acting under color of Tennessee law, had unreasonably seized the plaintiffs' persons and home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It reasoned that the joint actions of law enforcement and private parties met the statutory requirements for liability and that equitable relief such as an injunction was available, though it found little risk of recurrence by the former officials. In a later order, the court struck a document purporting to show satisfaction of the damages judgment because a partial payment did not fulfill the full award absent an agreement. The opinion also addressed related procedural matters concerning costs and attorney fees.

civil rightsgunsprocedure

The case involved a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiffs Cindy Lane and her husband against Lincoln County Hospital and its administrator. They alleged that the hospital's policy of admitting patients for labor and delivery only upon the direction of a staff physician deprived Mrs. Lane of obstetrical services on a discriminatory basis unrelated to medical need, after she arrived in labor without prior prenatal care or an attending physician. The court determined that the county-operated hospital was acting under color of state law as a recipient of federal Hill-Burton funds, which carried community service assurances requiring the facility to make services available to all persons in its territorial area. The core reasoning centered on federal regulations mandating that such hospitals provide alternative admission arrangements for residents who would otherwise be excluded by a physician-admissions policy, rendering the hospital's operating procedures noncompliant with those assurances.

civil rightshealthcarefederal power

This case involved buyers who sued sellers for damages after purchasing a residence, alleging that the sellers intentionally concealed extensive structural damage that was not discoverable through reasonable inspection, asserting claims under the common-law tort of deceit and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. The defendants moved to dismiss the statutory claim, arguing that the Act did not cover real estate transactions or isolated private sales between individuals. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the Act explicitly references real property in multiple sections and lacks any exemption excluding real estate or one-time sales, allowing the claim to proceed under the Act's catch-all provisions. On the merits, after presenting evidence of the transaction and alleged concealment, the court directed a verdict for the sellers at the close of the buyers' evidence and a verdict for the buyers when all evidence was closed, taxing each party with their own costs.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a pro se prisoner plaintiff suing jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants acting under color of Tennessee law violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in contravention of his physician's orders. The court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the allegations sufficiently stated a viable cause of action. On discovery matters, the court modified the magistrate's recommendation and denied the defendants' motion for production of medical documents under Rule 35(b)(3), directing that requests should instead proceed under Rule 34 without court intervention. The court also declined to dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to attend a pretrial conference due to his incarceration and hospitalization, determining that sufficient cause had been shown and that his conduct did not warrant involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b). Finally, the court requested that an attorney represent the plaintiff given the complexities of the litigation and the plaintiff's circumstances.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved federal criminal charges against defendant Puckett for operating a methamphetamine laboratory, along with related counts against codefendants. The court denied retained counsel's late motion to withdraw, citing the proximity to trial, lack of substitute counsel, and no explanation for the defendant's dissatisfaction. It rejected the defendant's Brady claim concerning a codefendant's presentence statements, finding them non-exculpatory and not subject to disclosure. The court also overruled objections to the admission of seized lab equipment and granted a judgment of acquittal on one count while the jury acquitted on another but convicted on the main count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Dewey Scott Frazier, a state prisoner, challenging his 1976 Tennessee conviction on grounds that pretrial publicity deprived him of an impartial jury and that he was denied compulsory process for a witness, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This was Frazier's third successive federal habeas petition, and the new grounds raised had previously been presented to state courts before his earlier federal filings. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the failure to assert these grounds earlier constituted an abuse of the writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and Rule 9(b), as there was no showing of excusable neglect or a retroactive change in law that would justify the omission. The court denied summary judgment to the petitioner and granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, while issuing a certificate of probable cause for appeal.

criminal lawprocedurefederal powercivil rights

This case was a products liability lawsuit brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, where the plaintiffs sought damages for personal injury and loss of consortium allegedly caused by a product manufactured by the defendant. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claims were barred by Tennessee's ten-year statute of limitations for product liability actions, which runs from the date of first purchase. The court reasoned that the action was not filed within the required period, that prior decisions had upheld the constitutionality of the statute against similar challenges, and that any exceptions to the limitation period must be created by the legislature rather than the courts.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a diversity action in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attorney negligently failed to prepare and file a brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, resulting in the reversal of a favorable workers' compensation judgment. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Kentucky law governed and did not allow punitive damages on the facts alleged, so the amount in controversy fell below the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Applying Tennessee conflict-of-laws rules, which follow the lex loci delicti doctrine, the court determined that Kentucky substantive law controlled because the last act necessary to complete the tort occurred in Kentucky; under that law, punitive damages require wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct and are unavailable for mere gross negligence. The complaint contained no allegations meeting Kentucky's standard for punitive damages.

proceduretorts & liability