Jerome Turner

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Efficient Solutions against Meiners' Country Mart for unpaid services under a master service agreement, along with the defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The defendant demanded a jury trial, but the plaintiff moved to strike the demand based on an express jury waiver clause in the contract. The court granted the motion to strike, ruling that the waiver was knowing and voluntary since the defendant offered no evidence it was unaware of the provision when signing, that the contract language was not ambiguous, and that the waiver extended to the counterclaims because they arose directly from the formation and performance of the contract containing the clause.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Angela Covey sued her former employer, Methodist Hospital, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after she was not reinstated to her Purchasing Agent position following medical leave for multiple sclerosis and declined an offered alternative role. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FMLA claims. The court reasoned that the FMLA permitted the employer to transfer an employee needing intermittent leave to a position that better accommodated her schedule, that the offered Payroll Clerk position was a valid accommodation, and that there is no private right of action for an employer's failure to follow its own leave policies.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiff contractors challenged the Memphis City Schools Board's use of minority and women business enterprise programs that set racial goals for subcontracting on public construction projects, arguing the underlying disparity study was flawed and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court addressed whether the Board could rely on new evidence gathered after enacting the programs to show the required "strong basis in evidence" of past discrimination. The court held that post-enactment evidence is inadmissible for this purpose. It reasoned that Supreme Court precedent in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. requires the governmental entity to have developed a sufficient factual predicate of discrimination before implementing a race-based program, as racial classifications demand strict scrutiny and cannot be justified retroactively at trial.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case Ashton v. City of Memphis concerns white police officers' challenges to the Memphis Police Department's use of affirmative action in 1988 and 1989 sergeant promotions, which bypassed higher-ranked white candidates to meet racial proportionality goals under prior consent decrees. Following remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court assessed whether these measures were narrowly tailored to address the government's compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against black officers. The opinion details the history of 1974, 1979, and 1981 consent decrees that established long-term goals for black representation in promotions approximating the local civilian labor force, while examining applicant data, the effects of seniority scoring, and limitations in evidence on the relevant qualified labor pool. The court found the promotions aligned with the decrees' requirements but noted insufficient proof on the decrees' ongoing necessity and constitutionality.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in Mary Brigance’s Chapter 13 proceeding, where EZ Cash 1, LLC objected to the treatment of its claim arising from a short-term loan structured as an exchange of checks for $200 in immediate funds in return for Brigance’s $248 post-dated check. The bankruptcy court ruled that EZ Cash held only a general unsecured claim because Brigance’s check did not create a security interest under Tennessee law and that separate classification of the claim was improper. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that a negotiable instrument cannot serve as collateral for the underlying obligation it is meant to satisfy and that EZ Cash failed to demonstrate grounds under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1) for preferential treatment over other unsecured creditors. The court reviewed the bankruptcy findings for clear error on facts and de novo on legal conclusions, finding no basis to disturb the determinations.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the death of Jeffrey Alexander, who was allegedly thrown to the floor and held down by BB King's nightclub employees, leading to traumatic asphyxia, after which responding Memphis police officers handcuffed him, placed him in a contorted position, and delayed medical treatment. Plaintiffs, his parents, brought state-law tort claims and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the club defendants and the Memphis defendants. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard that accepts all factual allegations as true unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiffs to relief. It denied the officers' motions in part on qualified immunity and other grounds without prejudice to later summary judgment after discovery, while resolving certain legal issues such as the viability of survival and wrongful-death claims under Tennessee law and § 1983.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case was an appeal by the United States Postal Service from a bankruptcy court order prohibiting it from charging a one-time $50 fee to process court orders deducting wages from a Chapter 13 debtor-employee and remitting them to the bankruptcy trustee. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the Postal Service lacked authority to collect the fees. The core reasoning was that the deducted amounts were post-petition earnings that remained property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 1306, so the deductions violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) by exercising control over estate property without obtaining relief from the stay.

federal powerprocedureproperty

In Owen v. United States, cash-basis taxpayers John Owen and Glenda McCormick sued for a refund of $74,107 in 1987 federal income taxes, claiming they should have been allowed to increase the basis of sold condominiums by the cost of alleged improvements totaling over $240,000 and to take additional deductions for real estate taxes, mortgage interest, and warehouse depreciation. The district court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, applying the rule that taxpayers bear the burden of proving entitlement to a refund and must substantiate claimed deductions and basis adjustments with competent evidence. The court evaluated the sufficiency of promissory notes, testimony, and other proof offered for the improvements and operating costs, considered evidentiary issues such as the best evidence rule, and concluded as a matter of law that the plaintiffs could not prevail on at least some of the disputed claims.

taxesproperty

The case involved a claim by the administratrix of Larry Earl Weaver's estate against Tipton County and various jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Weaver's serious medical needs related to alcohol withdrawal and seizures while he was incarcerated, leading to his death, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court considered motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants, applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In its reasoning, the court examined the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, including the jailers' observations of Weaver's symptoms and their failure to provide medical treatment despite recommendations, as well as the county's policies on medical care and training for jail staff.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Tenn-Fla Partners appealed the bankruptcy court's revocation of its Chapter 11 plan confirmation order under 11 U.S.C. § 1144, after the debtor sold its primary asset (a Florida apartment property) for substantially more than the value represented during confirmation proceedings. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, determining that TFP had concealed ongoing discussions with potential buyers and the property's true market value while seeking confirmation. The court held that these non-disclosures amounted to fraud that impaired the bankruptcy court's ability to verify compliance with confirmation requirements such as those in § 1129(a), and therefore affirmed the revocation of the plan.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, handicapped individuals sued the state and its officials, alleging that fees of $20.50 for initial handicapped parking placards and $3 for bi-annual renewals violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by conditioning equal access on payment of a surcharge. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Tax Injunction Act barred the suit and that Eleventh Amendment immunity protected the state, along with a statute of limitations defense. The court reviewed the standards for motions under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and summary judgment, and examined whether the fees qualified as a tax under the Tax Injunction Act while noting pending Sixth Circuit appeals on ADA abrogation of state immunity. Core reasoning focused on jurisdictional limits promoting state revenue administration and identifying the proper limitations period for the ADA claims, which were enacted before the general federal catch-all statute.

civil rightsfederal power

Plaintiff Allin Means sued former IRS District Director John Stocker in his individual capacity, alleging due process violations under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments arising from IRS administrative proceedings and a tax levy on his bank account and earnings; he sought to restrain collection, remove the levy, and recover damages, framing the claim as a Bivens action. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that Bivens claims against IRS officials for due process violations are precluded by Congress's provision of specific statutory remedies under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (exclusive remedy for damages from IRS collection actions) and other avenues such as paying the tax and suing for a refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 7422; the plaintiff had not pursued those remedies and therefore could not establish an actionable claim.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case involved claims by African-American voters and advocacy groups that Tennessee's 1994 state House reapportionment plan (Chapter 536, Plan A) unlawfully diluted Black voting strength in six rural west Tennessee counties under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court ruled that Plan A violated the statute because it failed to create any majority-Black House districts in that region, and therefore ordered Plan B (which includes one such district) into effect. The decision rested on findings that the three Gingles preconditions were satisfied, that Senate Report factors including a history of official discrimination and socioeconomic disparities impaired Black political participation, and that the number of majority-Black districts was not substantially proportional to the Black voting-age population when the analysis was limited to the six-county rural west Tennessee area. The court rejected arguments to include Shelby County in the proportionality calculation or to rely on influence districts.

electionscivil rights

The case concerned Procter & Gamble's breach of contract claims against Yugoslavian entities Viskoza-Loznica, Progres, and related parties for failure to pay for wood pulp shipments, plus separate claims against banks for refusing to honor letters of credit, all interrupted by U.S. sanctions under Executive Orders 12808 and 12810 that froze assets of listed Yugoslav entities. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, insufficient process and service, with Investbanka also seeking summary judgment, while Procter & Gamble moved to strike certain filings. The court found subject matter jurisdiction existed under diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332) as conceded by all parties, analyzed potential jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. § 1330) based on defendants' status at the time of the acts, addressed service of process issues including under the Hague Convention and timeliness relative to the statute of limitations, and ruled on the motions to strike by denying one and granting another.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Hinkle v. Delavan Industries, Inc., a truck driver sued the corporate parents and affiliates of his employer after being injured by a trailer manufactured by the employer, alleging that the parent companies negligently failed to ensure safe design through their safety task force. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The reasoning was that the worker's compensation law provided the exclusive remedy against the employer, and the parent companies did not assume an independent duty of care merely by forming a task force to address safety issues among subsidiaries, nor was there evidence of alter ego liability under Tennessee law.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves title insurance companies suing a bank for losses suffered by mortgage lenders when an attorney misappropriated funds from a real estate escrow account at the bank through check kiting and overdrafts that the bank accommodated with accelerated credit and a credit line. Plaintiffs asserted claims directly and as subrogees under Tennessee law, including UCC provisions on check returns, midnight deadlines, and subrogation rights. The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure standards for motions to dismiss and summary judgment, reviewed the factual history of the account's overdrafts and the bank's monitoring practices, and denied the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment in their entirety while leaving certain affirmative defenses unresolved.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Baptist Memorial Hospital's claim under ERISA against the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Health Benefits Fund for $356,984.57 in unreimbursed charges from David Marsaw's 1991-1992 hospitalization. The hospital argued that the Fund was the primary payer and that equitable principles or the Fund's actions should excuse the late submission of the claim. The court granted the Fund's motion for summary judgment and denied the hospital's, holding that the Fund was not liable. It reasoned that the plan required proof of loss within one year, the hospital's claim was submitted years later, the Fund's denial was rational under the arbitrary and capricious standard applicable to ERISA plans, and no evidence supported equitable estoppel or tolling of the deadline.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves consolidated claims by the Rural West Tennessee African American Affairs Council and other voters alleging that Tennessee's 1994 House reapportionment plan (Chapter 536, Plan A) violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting African-American voting strength in rural west Tennessee counties. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, with plaintiffs arguing that prior rulings established the necessary facts for dilution and defendants contending that including Shelby County shows proportional representation. The court denied both motions, finding that material factual disputes remain regarding the appropriate geographic scope for proportionality analysis, whether the Gingles preconditions are met, and the application of prior Senate-plan decisions to this House redistricting challenge.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a class action by Memphis police officers alleging that the City violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying overtime wages. The court addressed four main issues: the exempt status of police captains, compensation for commuting in police vehicles, compensation for cleaning and maintaining vehicles, and the validity of the compensatory time policy. The court held that police captains qualify as salaried executives exempt from overtime, officers are not entitled to pay for commuting or vehicle maintenance time, and the compensatory time policy complies with the FLSA. The reasoning relied on FLSA regulations defining executive exemptions, the salary basis test as interpreted in Auer v. Robbins, and Department of Labor guidelines on compensatory time usage.

labor & employment

Alfred Smith, an African-American employee at Schering-Plough since 1982, sued his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming race discrimination through negative performance evaluations after a compounding error, assignment of a special project not given to Caucasian employees, and a lateral transfer back to a prior supervisory role. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence claims, the court found Smith failed to establish a prima facie case on any claim: he offered no admissible evidence of disparate treatment regarding evaluations or projects, and the transfer did not qualify as an adverse employment action because Smith himself acknowledged it was not a demotion. The court therefore held that no genuine issue of material fact existed for trial.

civil rightslabor & employment