Andrew O. Holmes

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by two affiliated Tennessee corporations, American Plan Corporation (operating under the Industrial Loan and Thrift Act) and American’s Catalog Store, Inc., seeking to confirm their right to lease space within the loan company's premises for a catalog sales business, after the Commissioner of Insurance and Banking asserted lack of authority for such an arrangement. The Chancery Court granted the requested relief, overruling the Commissioner's demurrer claiming no justiciable controversy, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The Court held that the Act's plain language grants the companies the power to enter the lease and conduct the business without restriction by the Commissioner, as the statute does not expressly or impliedly prohibit operating another business in the same location or vest the Commissioner with such supervisory power. The reasoning emphasized that unlike an earlier repealed pawnbroker statute that had contained an explicit prohibition, the Industrial Loan and Thrift Act contains no such bar, and any regulatory restriction would require legislative action rather than implication.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Troglen v. State, the defendant was indicted and convicted of petit larceny under a Tennessee statute for obtaining $700 by writing a check that was later dishonored for insufficient funds. The state's witness testified that he cashed the check for cash after verifying its likely validity, while the defendant claimed the check covered a gambling debt and that subsequent gambling losses offset it, creating sharp conflicts in the evidence about the transaction's purpose and events. The trial court overruled the motion for a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury's verdict accredits the state's witnesses and resolves evidentiary conflicts, placing the burden on the defendant to show the evidence preponderates against guilt. The court also rejected claims of improper jury deliberations, finding no introduction of extraneous evidence on the issues and no resulting prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dennis Sanders and Willie True, who were convicted of third-degree burglary after a break-in at the Robertson Farmers Cooperative Building in Tennessee, where evidence included a cigarette lighter linked to the defendants, similar soil samples from their clothing and the scene, and their presence nearby shortly after the alarm sounded. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that the prosecutor's statements during closing improperly commented on True's failure to testify by noting that Sanders's testimony covered both men. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence adequate to support the jury's verdict and ruling that the prosecutor's remarks were a permissible inference from Sanders's testimony rather than a direct reference to True's silence. The opinion emphasized that the trial court's instructions protected the defendants' rights and that no reversible error occurred in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a prisoner, Charles Douglas Wood, who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1961 conviction for kidnapping for armed robbery, alleging coercion into a guilty plea, illegal arrest and searches, lack of preliminary hearing, and ineffective counsel. The trial court refused to issue the writ under T.C.A. sec. 23-1809, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the petition failed to attach a copy of the judgment as required by T.C.A. sec. 23-1807(2), and the allegations did not establish grounds for habeas relief since they constituted improper collateral attacks on a valid judgment or did not implicate constitutional violations.

criminal lawprocedure

In Scott v. State, the defendants were convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 50 years in prison after robbing a taxicab driver at knifepoint and with a sawed-off shotgun. On appeal, they argued that their right to counsel was violated when jail officials intercepted and censored letters from their court-appointed attorneys, and they sought directed verdicts of acquittal. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the mail interference fell under jail management discretion and caused no prejudice since the defendants made no incriminating statements, while the victim's identification and other evidence sufficiently supported the guilty verdicts; other claims regarding severance, venue, and the indictment were rejected for lack of supporting evidence or precedent.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a minor student and her father suing Hawkins County for injuries from slipping on a wet school bus step due to a leaking windshield on a rainy day, with the county carrying liability insurance. The trial court instructed the jury that the county owed the highest practical degree of care as a common carrier and had an absolute duty to keep the bus free of water, mud, and other hazards, resulting in verdicts for the plaintiffs that were affirmed on appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the county acted as a private carrier owing only reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances to the transported children, not the heightened standard applied to common carriers, and that the jury charge on maintaining the bus was erroneous.

torts & liability