Grafton Green

This case involves a worker's compensation claim filed in state chancery court in Anderson County, which the defendant sought to remove to federal court on grounds of diverse citizenship. The chancellor granted the removal petition and permitted an appeal from that order. The Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, following longstanding precedents that state appellate courts will not review removal orders and that the proper procedure for challenging removal is a motion to remand in federal court, which is the final arbiter of such questions.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case concerned the Pickett County Beer Board's revocation of the defendant's beer license, which the circuit court affirmed after review by writ of certiorari. The defendant appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, raising issues about the board's authority to act and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant had not filed a motion for a new trial in the circuit court, a prerequisite for reviewing assignments of error that depend on the bill of exceptions and proof rather than the technical record alone. Precedent from a similar certiorari proceeding confirmed that the absence of such a motion prevents review by the Supreme Court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a claim by a former Chattanooga police detective for total and permanent disability benefits under two $2,000 certificates in a group life insurance policy issued by Prudential, which defined disability as rendering the insured wholly and permanently unable to perform any work for compensation of financial value. After the plaintiff was demoted to patrolman and retired on pension due to a heart condition, a jury awarded him the benefits, a decision approved by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that material evidence from the plaintiff's testimony, corroborating witnesses, and physician supported the jury's finding that his heart ailment prevented substantial earning capacity in any occupation for which he was reasonably fitted. The court applied prior precedent requiring that any remaining earning capacity bear a reasonable relation to prior capacity and rejected the insurer's arguments that the plaintiff's prior work or theoretical light jobs defeated the claim.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a widow's suit against her late husband's administrator and heirs to set aside a prior divorce decree and recover homestead rights plus a year's support from the estate. The court found the divorce void for lack of proper jurisdiction, as the wife's attorney lacked authority to accept service of the husband's cross-bill without a court order authorizing substituted service. On the merits, however, the wife's prior abandonment and adultery barred her from homestead or support claims, though as surviving tenant by the entirety she was awarded full title to the couple's Greeneville house and lot.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned a collateral attack in chancery court on a county court order that had declared the complainant insane and appointed a guardian for her under Code sections 4451 et seq. The complainant alleged that the county court proceedings were void because she received no notice and was forcibly taken to a sanitarium. The court held that the county court, when acting under those statutes, exercises general jurisdiction rather than special or limited jurisdiction, so its records are entitled to a conclusive presumption of regularity unless the record itself shows a jurisdictional defect. Because the exhibited county court record neither showed nor disproved that notice was given, the presumption supplied the missing fact, the demurrer was properly sustained, and the bill was dismissed. On petition to rehear the court reiterated that the presumption is conclusive and is not overcome by the demurrer when the record itself does not impeach jurisdiction.

procedurefamily lawcivil rights

The case involved a defendant convicted of driving a motor vehicle while drunk and unlawfully leaving the scene of an accident, based on an indictment with two counts resulting in fines and jail sentences. The court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that there was insufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict. The prosecution relied on a highway patrolman's testimony about statements made by another driver during a preliminary hearing identifying the defendant as the driver, arguing that the defendant's silence amounted to an admission. The court reasoned that evidence of a failure to deny a charge during a judicial proceeding is inadmissible because a defendant is not at liberty to interpose denials during adverse testimony, unlike out-of-court settings, and that such incompetent evidence warranted reversal even on a general objection as it implicated constitutional rights.

criminal lawprocedure