Editorial
Front Page - Friday, November 12, 2010
Case Digests: Tennesse Court of Appeals Syllabus
John P. Konvalinka v Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
Hamilton County – This is the second time this case, filed by John P. Konvalinka (“the Petitioner”) to force disclosure of public documents, has been before us. In the trial court’s order that generated the first appeal, the court held that the records the petitioner requested from Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (“the Hospital” or “Erlanger”) were exempt from disclosure under state law, and pretermitted the question of whether they were exempt from disclosure under federal law.
On appeal, we held that the records were not protected from disclosure by state law and remanded for a determination of whether they were protected from disclosure by federal law. The Hospital attempted on remand to assert additional state law defenses to disclosure. The trial court held that the new state law defenses were outside the scope of the remand.
It also held that federal law did not protect the documents at issue from disclosure. Accordingly, it ordered the Hospital to produce the documents. The Hospital appeals challenging both aspects of the trial court’s judgment.
We affirm.
Sherry A. Ridley v. James G. Neeley, et al
Hamilton County – After being discharged from her employment with Federal Express Corporation (“the Employer”), Sherry A. Ridley filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“the Department”) initially approved her claim, and its ruling was affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Appeals Tribunal reversed, concluding that Ridley was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for work-related misconduct. The Board of Review affirmed the denial of benefits. Ridley filed a petition for judicial review. The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision. Ridley appeals to this Court and essentially contends that there is no evidence that she committed work-related misconduct.
We conclude that there is substantial and material evidence to support the decision that Ridley is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because of work-related misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm.
SNPCO Inc., d/b/a Salvage Unlimited v. City of Jefferson City, et al
Jefferson County – The question before this Court is whether the grandfather clause of Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-208(b)(1) protects the owner of newly annexed city property from the enforcement of a citywide ordinance prohibiting the sale and storage of fireworks. Interpreting section 13-7-208(b)(1) strictly against the landowner, we hold that the grandfather clause does not apply because the ordinance is not a “zoning” restriction or regulation, i.e., the ordinance does not regulate the use of property within distinct districts or zones pursuant to a comprehensive zoning plan.
Accepting the facts alleged in the landowner’s amended complaint as true, the landowner is not entitled to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ordinance against its preexisting fireworks business.
We accordingly affirm the dismissal of the landowner’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Danny E. Rogers v. Steven Payne, et al
Johnson County – This appeal involves an inmate’s petition for writ of certiorari, which he filed after he was convicted by the prison disciplinary board of participating in security threat group activity. After reviewing the record, the trial court dismissed his petition. We affirm.
84 Lumber Company v. R. Bryan Smith, et al.
Washington County – 84 Lumber Company (“84 Lumber”) sued R. Bryan Smith (“Smith”) and Allstates Building Systems, LLC (“Allstates”) for a balance owed on an open account. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment.
The Circuit Court granted 84 Lumber summary judgment, and entered a judgment against Smith and Allstates in the amount of $27,611.31 plus attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6,500.00. Smith appeals to this Court.
We find that Smith did not sign the credit application in his personal capacity and, therefore, did not guarantee Allstates’ debt. We reverse the grant of summary judgment against Smith, and grant summary judgment to Smith. We affirm the grant of summary judgment against Allstates.
Robert G. Crabtree, Jr., et al v. Jennifer L. Lund
Carter County – Robert G. Crabtree, Jr., and Bonnie K. Hakey (collectively “the plaintiffs”) filed suit against Jennifer L. Lund (“the defendant”) seeking compensation for personal injuries and property damage arising out of a April 22, 2005, multiple-vehicle accident in Carter County. With her answer, the defendant coupled a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 “on the basis of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.”
Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit with prejudice finding “that the plaintiffs have not provided to the Court any valid reason for the delay in obtaining prompt service of process upon the defendant.” Plaintiffs appeal.
We (1) vacate the trial court’s judgment dismissing the
plaintiffs’ complaint and (2) re-
mand for further proceedings.
|
|