Curtis Lynn Collier

In this case, surface property owners sued the holder of severed mineral rights and its lessee for declaratory relief, to quiet title, to enjoin trespass, and for damages after the lessee removed sandstone from the land, damaging trees and creating roads. The 1928 deed reserved to the grantor “coal, oil, gas and any and all other minerals,” and the defendants claimed this included sandstone; the plaintiffs contended it did not. The court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on their first three counts and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim, holding that sandstone is a rock or stone rather than a mineral under the deed’s plain language and ordinary definitions. It denied the defendants’ summary-judgment and amendment motions and reserved ruling on damages pending resolution of the remaining claims.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves Patricia Tolliver suing her former employer, Children's Home-Chambliss Shelter, a non-profit shelter for children, for age and sex discrimination, retaliation, and related employment claims, primarily concerning unequal pay and cleaning assignments compared to male employees. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on most claims, including retaliation and those related to cleaning tasks, but denied it on the disparate pay claims. The decision was based on the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff was paid less than similarly situated male employees due to sex or age, while finding insufficient evidence to support the other allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Plaintiff Ralph Freeman, a police officer, sued Wal-Mart for damages after a store greeter briefly touched his shoulder while requesting a receipt following activation of the store's EAS alarm; Freeman shoved the greeter, leading to an altercation captured on video that was later publicized and caused him embarrassment, though he suffered no physical injury. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, which Freeman did not oppose. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and that Freeman could not establish the required elements of his claims, including breach of duty, severe emotional injury, or expert proof for negligent infliction of emotional distress, resulting in dismissal of the case.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Defendant Toney Robinson, who was indicted in April 2010 on charges including possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine after a 2009 search of his residence uncovered 21 grams of crack and firearms; he pleaded guilty in July 2010, but his sentencing occurred after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) took effect in August 2010. The FSA raised the threshold for the five-year mandatory minimum from 5 grams to 28 grams of crack, meaning Robinson would face a 10-year mandatory minimum under the prior law but none under the new thresholds. The court granted Robinson's request to apply the FSA, holding that its reduced mandatory minimums are retroactive to offenders whose conduct predated the Act but who had not yet been sentenced. The reasoning centered on the FSA's purpose to reduce sentencing disparities, the Sentencing Commission's conforming guideline amendments effective for post-enactment sentencings, and indications of congressional intent supporting application to pending cases.

criminal law

This case involves the U.S. government's motion to garnish assets held by Benton Bancshares, Inc. on behalf of defendant Jimmy L. Goddard, who was convicted of misapplication of bank funds and ordered to pay $1,185,328 in restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The assets, consisting of cash, stock liquidation proceeds, and future dividends, were held jointly by Goddard and his wife in a tenancy by the entirety; Mrs. Goddard intervened and conceded the government's interest but sought to limit it to a share of the property. The court granted the motion in part, authorizing garnishment of one-half of the assets. It reasoned that MVRA restitution liens are treated like tax liens and can reach entireties property, but the non-debtor spouse retains an equal interest, and the government failed to present evidence sufficient to support an equitable adjustment favoring a larger share.

criminal lawproperty

In Taylor v. Duncan, plaintiff Shirley Taylor sued the Office of Representative John J. Duncan, Jr., alleging that her 2009 termination from her position as an assistant staffer violated the Congressional Accountability Act through age and perceived disability discrimination under the incorporated ADEA, Rehabilitation Act, and ADA. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting absolute immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause because some of her duties involved legislative matters. The court denied the motion after converting it to summary judgment, holding that Taylor's core duties consisted of non-legislative constituent services and administrative tasks, that the termination decision was administrative rather than legislative, and that she had presented sufficient evidence of a prima facie case to proceed.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney James A.H. Bell following his criminal contempt conviction for conduct during his representation of defendant Johnny Martin in a federal drug conspiracy case. The show cause order alleged that Bell made misrepresentations to the court about a prior representation and conflict of interest involving potential witness Joe Cofer, including claims of confidential communications and an ongoing relationship that justified withdrawal. After a hearing where Bell presented evidence and witnesses, the court found he had engaged in unethical conduct violating the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct. The court decided to publicly admonish Bell and order him to deliver ten lectures on ethics and civility within two years, with semiannual compliance reports, determining this sanction appropriate after considering mitigating factors like remorse.

criminal lawprocedure

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Abraham Park sued Unum Life Insurance Company and Unum Group for long-term disability benefits under a group policy provided through his former employer, after the insurer denied his claim for lack of medical support. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the suit was barred by the policy's three-year contractual limitations period, which began running after proof of claim was due and was tolled only during a reassessment process. Plaintiff did not contest the timeline but argued the limitations clause was ambiguous or unreasonable. The court held that the provision was clear and enforceable because it allowed the plaintiff ample time to file suit after the denial and reassessment, making the action untimely. It therefore granted summary judgment and dismissed the case.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Dr. William Alexander suing Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company over the denial of long-term disability benefits under a policy originally obtained through his former employer, Arthur S. Keats, M.D. Associates. Plaintiff asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, while Defendant contended the policy was an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan that preempted those claims. The court granted Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s cross-motion, holding that the policy remained subject to ERISA because it originated under an employer-sponsored group arrangement with Risk Group Number 25325, partial premium contributions by the employer, and continuation rights tied to the original group terms. The core reasoning examined the Salary Allotment Agreement, the employer’s role in billing and discounts, and the fact that post-employment individual payments preserved the same policy without creating a new individual contract outside ERISA coverage.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

In United States v. Sanders, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to steal and possess stolen U.S. mail after admitting to cashing stolen checks as part of a scheme with two codefendants. She pleaded guilty in May 2009 but had sold hydrocodone pills two days earlier, with no further criminal activity after the plea. The court addressed whether this unrelated pre-plea conduct should bar the two-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1. The court granted the reduction, holding that subsequent criminal conduct unrelated to the charged offenses warrants more lenient treatment when it occurs before the guilty plea and does not continue afterward, consistent with the defendant's timely admission of guilt and cooperation.

criminal law

This case involved a claim by S.K. Services, a janitorial services company, and its owner against FedEx for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after the owner complained about alleged race-based mistreatment and exclusion of an African-American employee at FedEx's facility. The court addressed an issue of first impression regarding whether and how an independent contractor could bring a § 1981 retaliation claim on behalf of his employee against a third party. The court held that the plaintiff must show the complaints were directed toward protecting the contractual rights between the contractor and the employee. It sustained the defendant's objection to evidence of the complaints because they failed to connect the alleged race-based animus to interference with those specific contractual rights, as opposed to rights between the employee and FedEx.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the resentencing of Dr. Earl McElheney, convicted on one count of receiving child pornography, following a remand from the Sixth Circuit. After an initial 135-month Guidelines sentence, the district court imposed a non-Guidelines term of 78 months imprisonment, along with supervised release, a fine, and other penalties. The court determined this sentence after calculating the advisory Guidelines range, considering potential departures, and weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Its reasoning centered on doubts expressed by multiple courts about the reliability of the child pornography Guidelines and a new psychosexual evaluation finding a low risk of reoffense, while ensuring the sentence reflected offense seriousness, deterrence, and avoidance of unwarranted disparities.

criminal law

This case concerns the resentencing of Michael Johnson, convicted after trial on four counts involving conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, felon-in-possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. After the Sixth Circuit remanded for resentencing in light of Begay and Kimbrough, the district court first determined the advisory Guidelines range under the career-offender provisions, then imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of 300 months in prison plus five years of supervised release. The court explained that the sentence was justified under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by Johnson's lengthy criminal history, repeated rapid reoffending, and escalating conduct, which demonstrated a substantial ongoing risk to the public that required lengthy incapacitation during his peak offending years while still permitting later reintegration.

criminal lawguns

The case concerned Defendant Lekelford Bohanon's motion to suppress evidence seized during a 2008 traffic stop on Interstate 24 for speeding, including a baggie of marijuana found during a pat-down, a kilogram of cocaine discovered in a vehicle search, and post-arrest statements made by the defendant. The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, granting the motion in part to suppress two statements and denying it in part as to the physical evidence. The core reasoning was that the initial stop was valid, further detention was justified by reasonable suspicion from the odor of marijuana and the defendant's criminal history, the pat-down and vehicle search were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, but the statements resulted from custodial interrogation and were neither voluntary nor spontaneous.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney Thomas E. Cowan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, stemming from his handling of seven bankruptcy cases. The court investigated allegations including improper fee disclosures under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(b), delays in filing client cases, and related conduct issues, after the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a proposed state suspension that Cowan had believed applied. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marcia Phillips Parsons recommended a six-month suspension from practice in the district and denial of Cowan's motion to dismiss based on a settlement with the U.S. Trustee. The district court adopted these recommendations in full, holding that formal attorney discipline is initiated by the chief judge under local rules and is not affected by private settlements, with clear and convincing evidence supporting the violations. The court emphasized its independent authority to enforce professional standards for attorneys appearing in federal court.

procedure

The case involved an employee who worked at a powersports dealership and was exposed to carbon monoxide fumes while pregnant. After obtaining a doctor's note recommending leave until the exposure was addressed, she informed her employer but was later informed she had been replaced and her employment ended, which the employer characterized as a voluntary quit. She sued under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, common law retaliation, the Tennessee Maternity and Adoption Care Leave Act, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the three state-law claims, finding insufficient evidence of protected activity, causation, or other required elements. It denied summary judgment on the FMLA claim due to remaining factual disputes about whether the employee properly requested leave and whether the employer met its reinstatement obligations.

labor & employmentfamily law

The case arose under ERISA when plaintiff Paul McKay sued Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company over a denial of disability benefits, leading the district court to remand the claim for further investigation into which policy applied and whether coverage existed. Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), and the magistrate judge recommended awarding $17,300 after applying the five-factor test from Schwartz v. Gregori. Defendant objected, arguing that a remand is not a final decision on the merits and therefore fees were inappropriate. The court conducted de novo review, concluded that ERISA leaves fee awards to the court’s discretion without a strict prevailing-party requirement, determined that the Schwartz factors supported an award, and accepted the magistrate’s recommendation in full.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Fortner v. Tecchio Trucking, Inc., plaintiffs Jamie Fortner and James Fortner sued after their vehicle was struck on Interstate 24 by a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Rizerio Dearaujo, whose unsecured load of paper rolls shifted forward when he braked, causing the collision and resulting injuries. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Dearaujo, determining there was no genuine dispute of material fact that he violated the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 392.9 and 393.122) by failing to secure the load against lateral movement. The core reasoning relied on the defendant's own admissions that the load moved and prevented him from stopping, establishing negligence per se as the proximate cause, while noting that comparative fault and sudden emergency doctrines do not negate liability but remain relevant to the separate issue of damages.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a law firm that was assessed a penalty by the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 6700 for statements made in connection with the remarketing of certain tax-exempt bonds, which the IRS determined were false or should have been known to be false regarding their tax status. The firm paid the penalty of $570,870.49 (based on its gross income from the matter) and sued for a refund, then moved for partial summary judgment arguing that the maximum penalty should be limited to $16,000 corresponding to only 16 activities rather than over 100,000 individual bond sales. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute's language imposes a separate penalty for participation in each sale of an interest in the entity or plan, with no limit on the number of such sales that can be counted as distinct activities. The court rejected the firm's narrower reading of the statute that would count activities only on a per-entity or per-opinion basis and declined to follow contrary precedent from another district court.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves the sentencing phase of a federal capital trial against defendant Rejón Taylor, who was convicted by a jury of carjacking and kidnapping resulting in death, along with related firearm murder charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119, 924(j), and 1201, all stemming from the 2003 abduction and fatal shooting of victim Guy Luck. The court addressed multiple outstanding motions and evidentiary issues under the Federal Death Penalty Act, including a constitutional challenge to the death penalty on grounds of racial disparity and comparative proportionality in federal prosecutions, requests for discovery and expert testimony on prison conditions and racial patterns, the applicability of French law, admissibility of certain defense evidence such as pleas for mercy and unsworn statements, and a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the constitutional challenge and related discovery, limited expert testimony on future prison conditions as speculative and not properly mitigating, ruled that French law did not apply, and made various evidentiary determinations based on the FDPA's standards for aggravating and mitigating factors, the requirement that rebuttal evidence respond to actual proof rather than pleadings, and the need to avoid undue speculation or irrelevant considerations in capital sentencing.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights