Weldon B. White

This case concerns an employee's claim for unemployment benefits under the Tennessee Employment Security Act after she refused her employer's offer to transfer from day-shift work to a 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift. The Board of Review and chancellor found the work unsuitable due to the claimant's domestic circumstances (three children aged 12-15 and a husband who worked nights) and awarded benefits, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the facts were undisputed and that the claimant had made herself unavailable for work by limiting her availability based on personal schedule preferences, rendering the offered work suitable under the statute. It applied precedents such as Moore v. Commissioner of Employment Security, concluding that a claimant who refuses suitable work without good cause connected to the employment is disqualified from benefits.

labor & employment

The case involved George Peabody College for Teachers appealing a decision by the State Board of Equalization that its apartments and dwellings for married students and their families were subject to ad valorem taxes for 1964. The Chancery Court upheld the Board's ruling based on prior precedent interpreting T.C.A. sec. 67-502(2). The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed, holding that the properties were exempt because the housing facilities were directly incidental to and an integral part of the college's educational purpose. The court reasoned that providing such housing for married students and families, like other student facilities such as dining areas, qualifies for the statutory exemption for educational institutions under the Tennessee Constitution.

taxesproperty

This case involved a wrongful death claim by the administrator of William Holder's estate against a funeral home and its ambulance driver for alleged negligence in a second car accident that occurred while transporting Holder after an initial collision with a police car; the plaintiff had settled with the town and police officer from the first accident via a covenant not to sue. The defendants raised defenses of accord and satisfaction and election of remedies based on that settlement. The trial court instructed the jury on those defenses, treating the parties as potential joint tortfeasors, but the Tennessee Supreme Court held the instructions erroneous because the two accidents were independent and the settlement with one set of parties did not discharge liability for the other. The court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and trial court, finding the error was prejudicial, and remanded for further proceedings under proper instructions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the applicable statute of limitations in a suit by insured parties against their automobile insurer for injuries from a 1964 hit-and-run accident under the policy's Uninsured Motorist Coverage clause. The trial court sustained a demurrer, ruling that the one-year tort statute barred the action filed in 1965, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed on appeal. The court held that the six-year contract statute of limitations applies because the claim arises from the direct contractual relationship between the insured and insurer, under which the insurer agrees to pay sums the insured is legally entitled to recover from an uninsured motorist, rather than from any tort committed by the insurer itself. The opinion emphasized that the insurer's liability stems solely from the policy terms, not from tortious conduct, and distinguished precedents involving suretyship or malpractice claims where the gravamen was tortious injury.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a second permittee, who borrowed a car from the son of the named insured, had implied permission to use the vehicle under the omnibus clause of an automobile insurance policy, entitling a passenger injured in an accident to medical payments coverage. The court held that the second permittee did not have such permission, as the named insured had no knowledge of others using the car and had not given unrestricted permission that would imply allowance for lending the vehicle. The reasoning relied on prior precedents requiring evidence of express or implied permission through course of conduct, and distinguished the medical payments coverage from financial responsibility laws which do not alter the permission requirement here.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved the convictions of Ed Alley and Eugene Stamey for professional gambling and related offenses stemming from a police raid on Stamey's home where officers observed signs of a craps game. The court reversed Alley's professional gambling conviction, finding insufficient evidence that his gambling was professional rather than recreational, but affirmed Stamey's convictions and the misdemeanor charges against both. The court upheld the warrantless arrest and search as lawful because the officers had observed the gambling activity in progress, providing reasonable grounds for believing a crime was being committed in their presence, making the evidence admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Grover Jones's conviction for involuntary manslaughter arising from a fatal automobile accident while allegedly under the influence of intoxicants. After the first trial's jury had begun deliberating, the trial court granted the state's motion for a mistrial based on two jurors' undisclosed relationships to defense character witnesses who had testified about the defendant's reputation as a non-drinker. Jones raised a plea of former jeopardy at the second trial, which was overruled, leading to his conviction and sentence of one to one year and one day in prison. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge properly exercised discretion to declare a mistrial to protect the appearance of impartiality, and that the absence of a bill of exceptions from the first trial required presuming the decision was supported by the evidence and necessary under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

Paul Keith was convicted of second-degree murder for striking and killing his brother-in-law James Osborne with a piece of stove wood after an argument and fight at the Osborne home, following heavy drinking and a card game. Keith appealed his ten-year sentence, contending that the evidence preponderated in favor of his self-defense theory and that the jury committed misconduct by inquiring about parole and possibly determining the sentence before the degree of the crime. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the jury's verdict accredited the state's evidence, that conflicting testimony did not establish a well-founded fear justifying self-defense, and that there was no improper jury conduct or deviation from required procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved parents of schoolchildren in Fentress County, Tennessee, who sued the county board of education seeking a mandatory injunction to require transportation of their children to the nearer Pine Haven School rather than the Pall Mall School, along with damages for private transportation costs. The complaint alleged that the board's refusal violated state constitutional and statutory requirements to provide equal educational opportunities and abused its discretion by choosing a less efficient and more dangerous route. The trial court sustained a demurrer dismissing the action, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that school transportation decisions are discretionary functions of the board that courts will not compel via mandamus or injunction absent allegations and proof of arbitrary, unreasonable, or ultra vires conduct. The court found no such allegations in the amended bill and noted that the board had provided transportation to an available school, leaving the choice of routes and assignments within its authority.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a habeas corpus petition filed by Dan Joseph Reed, an inmate serving a twenty-year sentence after pleading guilty to three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. Reed alleged that his conviction was void due to various constitutional violations, including delayed presentment before a magistrate, police beatings, lack of a proper preliminary hearing, denial of counsel at an early stage, and inadequate representation by appointed counsel. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing as required by state statute and examined each claim on the merits despite procedural deficiencies in the petition. It concluded that the allegations lacked factual or legal support, noting that Reed was advised of his rights, entered a knowing guilty plea with the benefit of competent counsel, and chose not to pursue further review at the time. The court therefore denied the writ and affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Shelley v. Gipson, James M. Shelley sued the Gipsons in Tennessee state court for damages from a 1962 car accident in which both parties were injured; the Gipsons had earlier sued Shelley, and that action was removed to federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act because Shelley was a government mail carrier, resulting in substitution of the United States as defendant. The federal court dismissed the Gipsons' claims on the ground that Richard Gipson was contributorily negligent and also found Shelley negligent, after which the Gipsons filed a res judicata plea in the state case that the trial court sustained. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the federal finding of Shelley's negligence was not necessary to the judgment and Shelley had not been a party with control over the federal litigation.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves the appeal of Henry Clay Monts and Johnnie West, who were convicted of first-degree murder committed during a burglary of a Memphis store and sentenced to 150 years in prison each. The defendants raised multiple assignments of error, including lack of sufficient evidence to support the verdict, denial of their motion for separate trials, improper admission of Monts's confession to police, and erroneous admission of rebuttal testimony from certain witnesses. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, applying the presumption of guilt following conviction and finding that the evidence did not preponderate against the verdict, that the confession was admissible, and that the trial court committed no procedural errors in handling severance, witness impeachment, or jury instructions on the confession. The court noted that the facts were substantially the same as in a prior appeal and that the trial conformed to established state practices for determining confession admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Betty Shiflet appealing her conviction for criminal contempt in Hamblen County Criminal Court, where she was sentenced to six months in jail and a $50 fine for violating a temporary injunction against selling whiskey. The court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the trial judge had incorrectly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard appropriate for civil contempt rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard required for criminal contempt. The reasoning relied on established Tennessee precedent distinguishing civil contempts, which are remedial for the benefit of a party, from criminal contempts, which are punitive to vindicate the authority of the court, and requiring the higher burden of proof in the latter as affirmed in cases like State ex rel. Anderson v. Daugherty.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation dispute between the City of Bristol, as employer, and its employee John Reed over claims for bilateral femoral hernia injuries allegedly arising from work accidents on August 16, 1963, and September 10, 1964. The employer filed a petition in chancery court to resolve the dispute after making some voluntary payments, and the employee responded with an amended answer seeking affirmative relief for the 1963 injury, prompting the employer to raise a statute of limitations defense via a plea in abatement. The court held that the employee could properly assert the 1963 claim through an answer in the nature of a cross-bill connected to the original petition, and that the post-1964 compensation and medical payments tolled the limitations period for the earlier injury because they addressed an aggravation of the 1963 condition. It therefore affirmed the chancellor's award of temporary total disability followed by permanent total disability payments along with an order for surgery.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved residents of a rural area in Blount County, Tennessee, seeking to enjoin the proposed operation of a crematory by defendant Feezell, alleging it would constitute a public or private nuisance through mental anguish, physical discomfort, traffic hazards, property value depreciation, and potential pollution. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the petition as premature. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no cause of action exists to enjoin an anticipated nuisance prior to its establishment unless the allegations demonstrate it is certain to cause the complained-of harms, which the petitioners' claims of potential effects in a rural setting did not. The court noted that statutes regarding licensing or noxious odors would apply only after operations began and distinguished precedents involving residential rather than rural locations.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironment

The case involved Davis Van Zandt, who was convicted in two separate trials of petit larceny for stealing coin telephones from apartment buildings in Knoxville, Tennessee, and sentenced to workhouse terms. He appealed both convictions, claiming that a written confession given to a telephone company security agent was inadmissible because it was obtained without counsel after he had requested an attorney from the sheriff, that there was no proof of the corpus delicti, and that a recovered telephone was not properly identified. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed and remanded one conviction (Case No. 55) on the ground that the confession was taken in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, while affirming the other conviction (Case No. 58) because the remaining evidence, including testimony identifying the specific telephone by serial and key numbers, was sufficient to support the verdict. The court distinguished the confession issue from Escobedo v. Illinois based on the warnings given to the defendant and denied the petition for rehearing.

criminal law

The case involved Clifford Carver's conviction for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors, for which he received a 60-day jail sentence and a $250 fine; he appealed, but died while the appeal was pending. The sole remaining issue was whether his estate remained liable for the fine and costs. The court held that the death of a defendant during a pending appeal abates all proceedings ab initio, rendering the conviction and fine unenforceable against the estate. This conclusion rested on common-law principles that abatement ends the action entirely, supported by precedents from other states indicating that a criminal judgment does not become final until the appeal is resolved and that punishment is personal to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a husband must account to his wife during marriage for rents and profits he collected from real property the couple owned as tenants by the entirety. The trial court ruled that no such accounting was required, and the appellate court affirmed. Drawing on common-law doctrine of jus mariti, the court explained that a husband traditionally held rights to control and enjoy the profits of entireties property, and that Tennessee's 1913 and 1919 statutes abrogating most disabilities of coverture expressly preserved tenancies by the entirety without changing those incidents. The court further noted that permitting a suit for an accounting would disrupt the marriage and that any adjustment of interests could instead occur in divorce proceedings.

family lawproperty

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by an indigent defendant, Betty Jean Dillehay, who had been convicted of child neglect under Tennessee law after pleading guilty. She had served her 90-day jail sentence and paid her $2 fine through jail time but remained subject to confinement to work off $196.75 in court costs, including a $30.75 litigation tax, under statutes requiring imprisonment until fines and costs are satisfied. The petitioner argued that continued detention violated her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights because she could not afford to pay the costs unlike a wealthier defendant. The court held that the equal protection claim failed, as the statutes applied to all defendants and confinement for nonpayment of costs was a valid enforcement mechanism, but ruled that litigation taxes could not be worked off through imprisonment. The dismissal of the petition was affirmed.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this 1966 Tennessee Supreme Court case, a 14-year-old minor plaintiff and his father sued the defendants for injuries and related losses after the minor's motor scooter collided with the defendants' car; the jury returned verdicts for the defendants. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury that a minor operating a motor vehicle on public roads owes the same duty of ordinary care as an adult, and correctly refused an instruction applying the age-adjusted standard of care typically used for minors. The court affirmed the judgments below, reasoning that state licensing statutes (including T.C.A. §§ 59-507 and 59-704) require all licensees to demonstrate and exercise ordinary and reasonable control without creating separate standards by age, and that uniform application of the adult standard to motor vehicle operators serves public policy. A dissent argued that the statutes did not alter the common-law minor standard and that any change should come from the legislature.

torts & liability