Alan M. Prewitt

This case was a declaratory judgment action under Tennessee law seeking judicial construction of Chapter 343 of the Private Acts of 1961, filed in the Chancery Court at Nashville against the City of Memphis and other defendants. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case on its own initiative. The core reasoning was that suits against municipal corporations are inherently local actions that must be brought in the county of the city's location, and neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction over the subject matter or the defendant when the action is filed in the wrong county, rendering any resulting orders void.

procedure

This case was a workers' compensation dispute in which plaintiff Turner sought benefits for a back injury sustained while installing a window for defendant Owens. The trial court determined that Turner was an employee rather than an independent contractor and that Owens had employed at least five persons for pay, rendering him subject to the workers' compensation statute. It awarded Turner compensation for a 15% permanent partial disability, including hospital bills and weekly payments at the statutory minimum. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the right to control the manner of work and to terminate the relationship at will established employee status, and that payroll records and testimony confirmed the employment of more than five persons in 1960.

labor & employment

In Thomas v. State, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after fatally shooting the victim multiple times during an argument at a dice game in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and was sentenced to up to fifteen years in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the facts did not support the conviction. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence of a deliberate killing established malice sufficient for second-degree murder and that the jury was entitled to accept the state's account of the events, which placed the burden on the defendant to prove any mitigating circumstances that might reduce the offense to manslaughter or justify the homicide.

criminal law

The case involved Black youths convicted under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-1204 for willfully disturbing a religious assembly after they entered a church youth rally at a public amphitheater in Memphis, dispersed throughout the audience by stepping over seated people, and caused commotion that delayed the service. One defendant's appeal was dismissed for untimely filing of the bill of exceptions, but the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of the others after reviewing the uncontroverted evidence of a planned disruption. The court interpreted the statute to prohibit any willful disturbance of religious worship regardless of the precise method, found ample proof that the acts interrupted the meeting, and rejected claims that the convictions violated rights to access public facilities because the proceeding was a criminal case rather than a civil rights action. The reasoning emphasized the statute's purpose to protect religious gatherings and that the defendants' coordinated actions exceeded mere presence by attracting attention and halting proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious liberty

This case involved 62 employees of Special Products Company of Tennessee who went on strike in January 1960; their jobs were filled by replacements during the strike, and upon ending the strike in July 1960 they sought reemployment and unemployment benefits. The employer protested the claims, arguing the workers should be disqualified for benefits under provisions for voluntary quitting without good cause or misconduct connected with work. The Commissioner and Board of Review approved the benefits, and the Chancellor upheld that decision. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed, holding that the labor dispute disqualification under T.C.A. § 50-1324 ended once the strike terminated and the employees unconditionally offered to return, and that they could not be further disqualified for voluntary quit or misconduct as that would improperly adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute. The court relied on precedent establishing that eligibility for benefits begins immediately after an active labor dispute ceases, without regard to fault in the strike.

labor & employment

This case was a disbarment proceeding brought by the Tennessee Bar Association and Chattanooga Bar Association against Raulston Schoolfield, a former Criminal Court Judge of Hamilton County. The trial court permanently disbarred Schoolfield, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and now by the Supreme Court. The court relied on the record of Schoolfield's impeachment by the State Senate, which convicted him on charges including accepting a gift of a Pontiac automobile solicited from known law violators and lawyers with cases pending before him, using his judicial office to promote political candidates and direct racketeers, and using profane and obscene language that brought his office into public contempt. The core reasoning was that these findings established misconduct involving moral turpitude, rendering Schoolfield unfit to hold a law license, which is a revocable privilege granted by the court; the fact that the conduct occurred while he was a judge did not shield him from professional discipline.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Johnson v. State involved a defendant convicted of receiving and possessing unlawful intoxicating liquors based on evidence obtained through a search warrant for a motel with multiple cabins. The defendant appealed, arguing the search warrant was invalid because the copy provided to him was not an exact copy of the original and because it authorized searches of multiple premises occupied by different people. The court held that the search was invalid under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-518, which requires exact copies of search warrants, and under Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibiting general warrants. As a result, the court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hagemaker v. State, the defendants were convicted of third-degree burglary after being caught inside a cement plant building at night attempting to open a safe, with tools and gloves indicating intent to commit the offense. They appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying their entrapment defense and that the evidence supported their innocence. The court found that an informer acting as the sheriff's agent, along with the plant superintendent, had prearranged a plan that lured the defendants into the building as part of a scheme to apprehend them, with the informer initiating contact and guiding them to the site. Although Tennessee law generally does not recognize entrapment, the facts showed the criminal design originated with law enforcement agents and that the defendants were not trespassers on the property, leading the court to reverse the convictions and dismiss the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ab Hatchett, who was convicted of violating liquor laws after officers found 35 gallons of untaxed whiskey in his barn during a search pursuant to a warrant. Hatchett appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict and that the search warrant was invalid due to an insufficient description of the property. The court upheld the conviction, ruling that the unexplained presence of contraband on premises under the defendant's control is sufficient evidence of guilt and that the warrant's description, which named the occupant and included outbuildings, was adequate to allow officers to locate the premises with reasonable certainty despite a minor error in distance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Floyd Coke, convicted of receiving and concealing property obtained under false pretenses after James Carpenter fraudulently acquired electrical supplies from a hardware company using Coke's name, delivered them to Coke's property via his truck, and received payment from Coke despite warning that the goods were 'hot.' The trial court found Coke guilty based on the state's evidence, and on appeal the court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that the evidence did not preponderate against the jury's verdict, the presentment adequately alleged the offense even without exact statutory wording, and the prosecutor's closing argument comment on the lack of character evidence was not reversible error since the defense had opened the subject.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defamation suit by Logan's Super Markets against defendants whose representative testified before a Tennessee legislative committee considering a bill to regulate or prohibit trading stamps; the witness stated that stores using such stamps charged higher prices than those that did not. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants and dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the statements were protected by absolute privilege because they were made in a legislative hearing, were relevant to the subject of the inquiry, and extended the same immunity that applies to testimony in judicial proceedings. The Court reasoned that the public interest in full and fearless investigation by legislative bodies requires this protection, and the statements here were pertinent to the economic effects of trading stamps under consideration.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for subornation of perjury after he was accused of inducing a witness to falsely testify that he was the driver in a car accident involving the defendant, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months and 29 days, and on appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court found that the evidence, including corroborating testimony, supported the jury's verdict that the defendant had procured perjured testimony, and it held that the trial judge was not required to instruct the jury on corroboration or circumstantial evidence absent a specific request from the defendant.

criminal law

The case was a suit by the administrator of an insured driver's estate against the automobile liability insurer to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the insurer refused to defend a personal injury action brought by an injured passenger. The policy contained a standard exclusion for bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment, and the complaint alleged facts establishing that relationship. The court affirmed the chancellor's ruling that the insurer had no duty to defend, holding that the obligation is determined solely by the policy terms and the averments in the declaration rather than by contrary facts later communicated by the insured.

torts & liability

This case concerned whether a child adopted in Missouri could inherit property in Tennessee from a sister of the adopting parent, specifically where the adopted child of the deceased's brother sought the entire estate of Katie C. Reid to the exclusion of her first cousins. The court affirmed the Chancellor's decision sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the claim. The core reasoning was that adoption statutes must be strictly construed as they derogate from common-law inheritance rules based on natural relationships; Tennessee's adoption statute and precedents limit inheritance rights to the adoptive family and do not extend to collateral relatives of the adoptive parents; and the law of the property's location controls, so Missouri adoption status does not create Tennessee inheritance rights.

family lawproperty

This case involved a lawsuit by Jesse A. Bland Co., Inc. against Knox Concrete Products, Inc. for negligence causing a fire that destroyed corporate property and for unpaid rent under a lease. The corporation's charter had been revoked in 1949 for failing to file reports and pay taxes, seven years before the 1956 fire and the suit's filing; Jesse A. Bland, the sole stockholder, had died intestate earlier that year. The court held that the plaintiff corporation lacked sufficient existence to maintain the suit, as no Tennessee statute authorized a revoked corporation to sue after a reasonable winding-up period. The core reasoning was that upon charter forfeiture without statutory continuation, the property automatically passed to the sole stockholder, any right of action belonged to his heirs individually, and the seven-year delay exceeded any permitted winding-up time under state law.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved the State of Tennessee suing Mynatt Funeral Home, alleging that the company was issuing contracts for discounted funeral services upon the death of the holder without complying with state laws regulating the life insurance business. The defendant argued that these were merely discount agreements, not insurance contracts. The court held that the contracts constituted life insurance under Tennessee law, requiring compliance with insurance regulations, and upheld the constitutionality of the 1959 amendment to the relevant statute. The decision was based on prior precedent establishing that such death-contingent benefit contracts are insurance, and the need to protect against substantial potential liabilities.

business & regulatory

This case involved a woman suing her former husband and his parents for injuries from a car accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a vehicle owned by his parents and driven by him. The defendants filed pleas in abatement arguing that the parties were married at the time of the accident, so interspousal immunity barred any tort claim against the husband and thus against the parents under the family purpose doctrine. The trial court sustained the pleas as to the effect of the subsequent annulment, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the annulment of a voidable marriage (procured by fraud regarding age) did not render the marriage void ab initio for all purposes or create a right to sue for torts committed during coverture, as public policy and practicality limit the retroactive effect of annulment and the marriage was valid until avoided.

family lawtorts & liability

This case concerns a divorced father's appeal from a contempt finding for failing to pay child support under the divorce decree after the mother, who had custody, remarried and moved with the children to Texas. The court decided that the father remained liable for support and was not relieved of his obligations due to the mother's relocation or remarriage. The core reasoning was that precedents establish the father's duty to support his minor children is independent of the mother's actions in moving out of state, particularly where custody was awarded to her because of the father's misconduct, and that visitation rights do not implicitly restrict the children's residence or condition the support obligation.

family law

This case involved private citizens from Clay County petitioning the Circuit Court of Davidson County for a writ of certiorari to review and declare void the State Board of Elections' appointment of two local election commissioners, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of open hearings, and potential fraud. The Circuit Court overruled the Board's motion to quash and dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioners, as private citizens without any alleged special interest or injury beyond that shared by the general public, had no authority to maintain the action challenging the acts of a public body. The court further reasoned that questions of commissioner qualifications are political matters entrusted solely to the Board, that the governing statutes impose no requirement for public hearings on appointee fitness, and that allowing such suits would improperly substitute judicial review for the Board's discretion.

electionsprocedure

This case concerned the constitutionality of Tennessee statutes (T.C.A. Sections 6-2801 through 6-2820, as amended) allowing a city to lease land to an industrial development board, which would construct improvements financed by its own revenue bonds and sublet the property to a private company like Grenesco, Inc., without pledging the city's full faith and credit. The Mayor of Nashville filed a declaratory judgment action challenging his authority to execute the lease under provisions of the state constitution regarding legislative captions, taxation exemptions, and lending of municipal credit. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision upholding the statutes' validity, holding that the board functions as a municipal agency or instrumentality pursuing a public purpose of promoting industry and employment, that the leased property serves a public or corporate purpose, and that no unconstitutional lending of city credit occurs because the bonds are solely the board's obligation with repayment from project revenues and no tax levies involved.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty