William Fones

This case arose from efforts by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska to obtain nominating petitions and appear on the August 1996 ballot for an at-large Tennessee Supreme Court seat, challenging the State Coordinator of Elections' refusal based on the Tennessee Plan's retention election format for Justice Penny White. The Special Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts in part and reversed in part, holding that the vacancy created by Justice O'Brien's resignation must be filled through a contested election under T.C.A. § 17-1-301 and related statutes rather than solely via the retention process. The court reasoned that Article VII, Section 5 of the Tennessee Constitution requires a two-step process for filling judicial vacancies and that the Tennessee Plan does not override these provisions or permit an at-large seat to be filled without regard to the grand division residency requirement. It further ruled that any new vacancy from a retention rejection would not alter the original unexpired term's geographic constraints.

elections

This case consists of consolidated appeals in the Tennessee Supreme Court brought by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska against Brook Thompson and other state officials. The matters before the court were a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and a supplemental petition to rehear filed by one of the appellants. After considering the filings, the court denied the motion for leave to file the amicus brief and also denied the supplemental petition to rehear.

electionsprocedure

The consolidated cases concern challenges by relators John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska to actions by state election officials regarding the 1996 election to fill a vacancy on the Tennessee Supreme Court created by Justice O'Brien's resignation. After earlier orders granting certain equitable relief, the Supreme Court addressed multiple pending motions, including petitions to rehear, a motion for clarification, motions to supplement the record, and petitions to intervene. All motions and petitions were denied except the appellees' motion for clarification. The court clarified that its prior equitable relief applied only to the specific Supreme Court vacancy (later filled by Justice Penny White) and did not extend to intermediate appellate court judges, amending an earlier order by removing language that would have covered other similarly situated judges.

electionsprocedure

This case concerned disputes over qualifying deadlines and eligibility for candidates, including John Jay Hooker, Lewis Laska, and amicus John King, seeking to appear on the ballot for a Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy in the 1996 election. The court extended the statutory May 16, 1996, noon deadline under T.C.A. § 2-5-101 for independent candidates and party nominees to 4:00 p.m. on July 12, 1996, while holding that the vacancy must be filled by a resident of the Eastern Grand Division pursuant to T.C.A. § 17-1-301. The court also maintained prior equitable relief allowing Justice Penny White on the ballot. It reasoned that the unclear statutory scheme for Supreme Court elections made such relief advisable to promote fairness and that the extension aligned with the legislative framework, including analogous deadlines for late nominations under T.C.A. § 2-5-101 and related provisions.

elections

This case involved challenges by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska seeking to qualify as candidates for the Tennessee Supreme Court election on August 1, 1996. The court held that the Tennessee Plan for judicial retention did not apply because the evaluation commission had not recommended retention of incumbent Justice White, so general election laws governed and allowed contested candidacies. Hooker was ruled ineligible for the ballot due to his suspended law license, while Laska's case was remanded for a determination of his residency in the Western Grand Division; White and similarly situated incumbents were deemed to have met the May 16, 1996, petition deadline.

elections

This case was a will contest brought by the son and daughter of testator L.T. Matlock against his attorney Paul Simpson, who drafted the will naming himself as primary beneficiary and executor. The jury upheld the will's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed due to erroneous jury instructions on whether a confidential relationship existed and the burden of proof needed to rebut a presumption of undue influence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the reversal and remand, ruling that the attorney-client relationship combined with an unrestricted power of attorney established a confidential relationship as a matter of law, and that the presumption of undue influence arising from such a relationship must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case involved defendant James Leveye, who was convicted of multiple counts of burglary of a motor vehicle, larceny, felonious possession of explosives, and other charges after stolen property was found in his locked, parked Pinto following his arrest at a truck stop. Both lower courts upheld the warrantless search of the vehicle, which occurred after officers had probable cause to believe it contained additional stolen items but did not obtain a search warrant despite having time to secure arrest warrants. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because there was probable cause and exigent circumstances arising from the vehicle's mobility and potential for an accomplice to remove it or its contents. The court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in California v. Carney that a warrantless search of a vehicle in a public place is permissible with probable cause after a recent crime, without needing to show a high likelihood of actual flight risk, and overruled contrary prior Tennessee precedent.

criminal law

In Coffee v. Peterbilt of Nashville, Inc., the plaintiff sued for false arrest and false imprisonment after being arrested twice—in New York in 1983 and Missouri in 1987—on the same bad check warrant stemming from a 1978 truck repair payment to the defendant. The trial court awarded $5,600 for false imprisonment based on the second arrest, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the case, and the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals to reinstate the award. The court reasoned that the defendant, through its agent attorney Ruddy, had assumed a duty to dismiss the charge after receiving payment in 1983, that the warrant itself was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, and that the agent's negligent failure to dismiss proximately caused the 1987 arrest. The court applied Tennessee law on the tort claim after noting the absence of any request to apply Missouri law.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

In State v. Hutcherson, the defendant was convicted of sexual battery in Shelby County, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and dismissed the conviction because the State failed to prove venue by establishing that the offense occurred in Shelby County. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the case should be dismissed outright or remanded for retrial when venue was not shown and no other jurisdiction was identified. The Court held that the case could be remanded for a new trial, reasoning that proof of venue goes only to the court's jurisdiction rather than to the elements of the offense or the defendant's guilt or innocence, and that such a failure constitutes a procedural error rather than insufficient evidence on the merits under the double jeopardy principles from Burks v. United States. The opinion distinguished venue, which need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, from substantive proof of the crime itself, allowing the prosecution another opportunity to establish the location.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Pervis Tyrone Payne who was convicted of the first-degree murders of Charisse Christopher and her daughter Lacie, and assault with intent to commit first-degree murder on her son Nicholas, following a brutal stabbing attack in their apartment. The trial court imposed the death penalty for each murder and a 30-year sentence for the assault. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the jury instructions regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the constitutionality of the death penalty statute, and the proportionality of the death sentences. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's findings of statutory aggravating circumstances and that the sentences were not excessive compared to similar cases.

criminal law

In this workers' compensation case, plaintiff Mike Loy, a field worker and temporary foreman for defendant North Brothers Company, was injured in a one-car accident while driving to recruit a replacement crew member after one worker quit during a rush insulation installation job. The trial court awarded benefits, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because Loy was performing a duty related to supervising and staffing the crew. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Loy's actions had a rational connection to his employment duties and that the defendant failed to prove the injury resulted from willful misconduct, as speeding alone did not establish deliberate and intentional wrongdoing under the circumstances, including an unexpected road bump.

labor & employment

In Newman v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., a workers' compensation case, plaintiff Johnnie Alice Newman sought benefits after rupturing a cervical disc while lifting a battery at her Wal-Mart job, leading to surgery and ongoing pain and numbness that restricted her to lighter duties. The trial court awarded an 80% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, but the Tennessee Supreme Court modified the judgment on appeal to 50%. The court conducted a de novo review of the factual findings and determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported only the lower rating, taking into account the physician's 10% anatomical impairment, vocational factors such as work restrictions, pain, prior work history, and the fact that Newman had returned to employment with increased pay and positive performance evaluations. The opinion emphasizes that disability ratings in such cases focus on loss of earning capacity under the statutory scheme rather than other tort elements.

labor & employmentprocedure

This products liability case arose when plaintiff Goode alleged that asphalt shingles and felt manufactured by defendants caused him to develop permanent vitiligo after he handled the materials without gloves while installing a roof, with no warning labels on the products. The trial court directed a verdict for defendants at the close of proof, finding insufficient evidence that the products were defective or unreasonably dangerous under the Tennessee Products Liability Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated the directed verdict, ruling that the plaintiff's expert testimony failed to establish that the products posed a danger beyond what an ordinary consumer would contemplate, because it relied on unreliable literature, animal studies extrapolated to humans, and contradicted the absence of any prior documented human cases of such injury from asphalt roofing materials.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the widow of James L. Roberts against his employer, Lebanon Appliance Service Co., and its insurer, following Roberts' death from a heart attack while installing an ice machine. The central issue was whether Roberts was an employee entitled to benefits or a partner in the business, which would exclude him from coverage under Tennessee law unless he had elected to be included. The trial court found Roberts to be an employee and awarded benefits, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed on de novo review, holding that the evidence showed Roberts had purchased a 10% interest in the partnership, received compensation as a partner, and was considered a partner by the other owners, despite the absence of a formal signed agreement. The court reasoned that the preponderance of the evidence indicated Roberts was a partner at the time of his death, thus not qualifying as an employee under the workers' compensation statute.

labor & employment

This case was a direct appeal by Ronnie Cauthern from his convictions for the felony murders of Patrick and Rosemary Smith during a burglary, as well as the aggravated rape of Mrs. Smith, for which a jury imposed the death penalty (while his co-defendant received life imprisonment). The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and no reversible errors in the guilt phase regarding issues such as the admissibility of statements, pretrial publicity voir dire, and challenges to the death penalty statute's constitutionality. However, the death sentence was vacated because an inadmissible portion of Cauthern's statement to police could not be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in influencing the jury's sentencing decision, and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a direct appeal from convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated rape, along with a death sentence based on two aggravating circumstances (the murder being especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and being committed during the kidnapping and rape). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences after reviewing the trial record, including the defendant's detailed confession and supporting witness testimony. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's findings on the aggravating circumstances and lack of mitigation, that the death sentence was not disproportionate or arbitrarily imposed under T.C.A. § 39-2-205, and that prosecutorial questioning about nonexistent prior charges, while improper, did not amount to reversible error.

criminal law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Donald Richard Clark against National Union Fire Insurance Co. for two separate back injuries sustained in 1986 and 1987 while working at Manufacturing Sciences Corporation. The trial court awarded Clark 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for each injury and granted a lump-sum payment of $10,000 for the second injury to allow him to purchase a home. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the disability awards, finding they were supported by medical evidence of impairment and vocational testimony on loss of earning capacity, and upheld the lump-sum award as within the trial court's discretion based on the employee's financial needs and the statute's purpose. However, the court disallowed an award of pre-judgment interest, holding that the relevant statutes authorize only post-judgment interest. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned the constitutionality of a provision in the Juvenile Court Restructure Act (T.C.A. § 37-1-210) that allowed county legislative bodies to grant supplemental pay to general sessions judges serving also as juvenile court judges. The court held the provision unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, which requires that compensation for judges of inferior courts be fixed by the legislature and not altered during a judge's term. The reasoning was that general sessions and juvenile courts are inferior courts, so their judicial salaries cannot be delegated to county bodies for determination, though a separate statute providing a 10% base salary increase for exercising juvenile jurisdiction remains applicable. Payments already made in good faith could not be recovered, but future supplements under the invalid provision were barred.

procedure

This case is a direct appeal from a resentencing hearing in a first-degree murder prosecution where the jury again imposed the death penalty after finding the crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The court rejected the defendant's claims that adding new aggravating circumstances violated double jeopardy, that victim background evidence and crime-scene photos were improperly admitted, and that prosecutorial statements were reversible error. It held that sentencing factors are not offenses under Supreme Court precedent, the additional factors were rejected by the jury anyway, the evidence was relevant or harmless, and the proof supported the aggravating circumstance and the sentence. The court affirmed the death penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by a passenger rendered quadriplegic in a single-vehicle accident on a curve of U.S. Highway 41A, seeking damages from the State of Tennessee under statutes allowing claims for negligence in highway design or maintenance and for dangerous conditions on state highways. The Claims Commission ruled against the plaintiff, finding no negligence or dangerous condition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the State lacked sufficient prior notice of any danger. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff had established a dangerous condition based on the sharp curve created by a post-1978 redesign, a 6% downhill grade, and 23 similar prior accidents at the site, along with inadequate signage. The court further determined that notice was provided to appropriate state officials through accident reports and application of the missing witness rule, satisfying the statutory requirements for liability under T.C.A. § 9-8-307(J), and remanded for a damages determination.

torts & liability