Tag Archives: Supreme

Governor appoints four special Supreme Court justices to hear latest Hooker lawsuit

News release from Gov. Bill Haslam’s office
NASHVILLE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has appointed a special Tennessee Supreme Court to hear a case from which four Supreme Court justices have recused themselves.

The highly qualified and diverse appointees represent the three grand divisions of Tennessee.

The special court appointees are:

Oscar C. “Bo” Carr III, an attorney with Glankler Brown PLLC in Memphis for 37 years, where he has concentrated his practice in litigation, with an emphasis on business, construction, environmental and other civil litigation. Carr was named the Memphis Best Lawyers Environmental Litigation Lawyer of the Year for 2014. He was named Memphis Best Lawyers Construction Litigation Lawyer of the Year for 2013 and recipient of numerous honors and awards in his career. Carr received a B.A. in 1973 from the University of Virginia and a juris doctorate in 1976 from Emory University.

Rosemarie L. Hill, chair of the labor and employment section of Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel in Chattanooga, where she represents employers on a variety of employment-related issues, both in and out of court. Her trial practice also includes trade regulation, business litigation, and representation of tax-exempt, nonprofit, and educational institutions. She is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the Tennessee and Chattanooga Bar Foundations, and has been listed in Best Lawyers in America for antitrust litigation, commercial litigation and labor and employment litigation. In her first 15 years of practice, Hill accepted numerous court-appointed criminal defense trials and appeals. She received a B.A. from George Mason University and graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1984.

Thomas M. Hale, a partner with Kramer Rayson attorneys at law in Knoxville. Hale has been listed in Best Lawyers in America from 2008-2011, has been town attorney for the Town of Farragut, and served as chairman of the board of directors of the Knoxville Bar Foundation, president of Legal Aid of East Tennessee and president of the Knoxville Bar Association. Hale has extensive experience in commercial litigation and local government and regulatory matters. Hale has tried civil cases in federal and state courts throughout East Tennessee. Hale received a B.A., M.B.A. and J.D. from the University of Tennessee.

Melvin J. Malone, a partner in the Nashville office of Butler Snow, where he is the leader of the government and regulatory practice group. His areas of emphasis are telecommunications; public utilities; governmental relations; commercial litigation; and administrative law. He has been listed in Best Lawyers in America since 2011. Malone, who previously served as chairman of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, is a member of the Nashville Bar Association, Tennessee Bar Association, American Bar Association, and Napier-Looby Bar Association. Malone is currently serving his second term as chairman of 100 Black Men of Middle Tennessee, Inc. The immediate past chairman of the Tennessee State University Foundation Board of Trustees, he received a B.S. and J.D. from the University of Tennessee.

The special Supreme Court will decide the case of Hooker et al v. Lt. Governor Ramsey et al. Supreme Court Justice Janice M. Holder did not recuse herself from the bench in the case.

Supreme Court Justice Janice Holder to Retire

Leave a reply

News release from Administrative Office of the Courts:
Memphis, Tenn. – After more than 17 years and many firsts, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Janice M. Holder will make August 31, 2014, her last day with the state’s highest court.
Justice Holder announced that she is retiring at the end of her current term and will not seek re-election in the August 2014 judicial retention election. She notified Gov. Bill Haslam by letter today.
“It has been my privilege to serve the people of Tennessee as a trial judge and Supreme Court justice – and an honor to have been selected by my fellow justices as the first female chief justice in our state’s history,” Justice Holder said.
Justice Holder, the third woman to serve on the Tennessee Supreme Court, was the first woman to serve as chief justice, a role she held from September 2008 through August 2010. During the Court’s current term, the position of chief justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court has rotated, each chief justice serving a two-year term.

Continue reading →

TN Election Officials to Review U.S. Supreme Decision

Leave a reply

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee election officials plan to review a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says states can’t demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so.
The justices’ 7-2 ruling on Monday complicates efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in the country illegally.
Tennessee passed a law about two years ago that allows state election officials to purge noncitizen residents from election rolls.
Anyone listed as a noncitizen and registered to vote has 30 days to present proof of citizenship or be purged from the rolls.
Secretary of State spokesman Blake Fontenay told The Associated Press on Monday that election officials hadn’t seen the high court ruling, but planned to review it to see if it affects Tennessee.

Supreme Court Rules Disciplined Lawyer Must Pay $22K

Leave a reply

News release from Administrative Office of the Courts:
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled (Friday) that Knoxville attorney Herbert S. Moncier must pay the costs incurred prosecuting the disciplinary proceeding that resulted in his one-year suspension from the practice of law in Tennessee.
On June 1, 2011, the Supreme Court assessed costs totaling $22,038.32 against Mr. Moncier. Afterward, Mr. Moncier petitioned for relief from costs, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in his suspension were unfair and unconstitutional.
A three-member panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) refused to grant him relief from costs. Mr. Moncier appealed to the Supreme Court, again arguing that he should not be required to pay costs because the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his suspension were unfair and unconstitutional. Mr. Moncier also argued that the members of the BPR panel assigned to hear his petition for relief from costs were biased against him.
The Supreme Court addressed and rejected Mr. Moncier’s arguments and affirmed the BPR panel’s decision denying him relief from costs. Among other things, the Court concluded that Tennessee’s attorney-disciplinary procedure is consistent with the due process requirements of the Tennessee and United States constitutions and that disqualification standards applicable to judges do not apply to members of the Board of Professional Responsibility.
To read Herbert S. Moncier v. Board of Professional Responsibility Opinion, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark, visit TNCourts.gov.

Senate Launches Push to Have Legislature Choose Attorney General

Leave a reply

The Senate Wednesday launched an effort to amend Tennessee’s constitution to allow the Legislature to select the state attorney general.
The proposal (SJR196) would repeal a provision in the current state constitution, in effect since 1870, that requires the state Supreme Court to appoint the attorney general.
Sen. Mark Green, R-Clarksville, sponsor of the resolution, said Tennessee is the only state in the nation with such a system and it creates a conflict of interest for the attorney general to present cases to the body that hired him.
Green also argued that the attorney general is “twice removed” from being answerable to the people since justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the governor rather than elected by voters.
“In essence, we have appointees appointing,” he said.
The sponsor cited current Attorney General Bob Cooper’s refusal to file a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act – as did many elected attorneys general in other states – as an example that “clearly our present system is not working.
Green also argued that popular election of the attorney general, the system in place for 43 states, makes the position too political. In 2010, he said, 10 of the 43 elected state attorneys general were campaigning for governor while serving.
The sponsor’s arguments were sharply disputed by Sen. Jim Kyle, D-Memphis, and Doug Overbey, R-Maryville.
Overbey said no Tennessee attorney general has ever gone on to be elected governor, showing the present system results in attorneys general providing “honest and objective” legal advice “without regard to political winds.”
Kyle said a legislator-selected attorney general would be obliged to “kowtow to us.”
The resolution was approved 22-9 in the Senate. It now goes to the House. If approved there during the 108th General Assembly, it would then face approval again by the 109th General Assembly before being scheduled for a statewide referendum in 2018.

Supreme Court Overturns DUI of Man Sleeping in Parked Truck

3 Replies

News release from Administrative Office of the Courts:
Nashville, Tenn. – The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed a ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which set aside the conviction of James David Moats for driving under the influence after a police officer discovered him parked in a grocery store parking lot.
After observing that the arresting officer admitted activating the blue lights on her patrol car without either cause to believe a crime had been committed or reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity, the Supreme Court concluded that the officer was not acting in a “community caretaking role” and, in consequence, practically all of the incriminating evidence should not have been admitted at the trial.
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on December 7, 2008, an Etowah police officer on routine patrol observed Moats sitting in the driver’s seat of his pick-up truck, which was parked in a grocery store parking lot in an area of suspected drug activity. The officer continued on her route, but when she returned five minutes later to find the truck parked in the same position, she stopped her patrol car directly behind the truck, activated her blue lights, and called in the license plate number.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Reinstates Verdict in Death at Assisted Living Facility

Leave a reply

News release from Administrative Office of the Courts:
Nashville, Tenn. – The Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated a jury verdict for compensatory damages against Americare Systems, Inc., the management company of Celebration Way, an assisted living facility in Shelbyville. The Supreme Court remanded the jury verdict for punitive damages to the Court of Appeals for further review. A jury returned a verdict against various defendants, including Americare, totaling $300,000 in compensatory damages, and $5,015,000 in punitive damages, in favor of the daughters of Mable Farrar. Farrar died as a result of the failure of Celebration Way’s nursing staff to give Farrar her prescribed medicine and the negligent administration of an enema that caused her colon to rupture.
In 2003, Farrar, age 83 and in good health other than occasional constipation, resided at Celebration Way. The nursing staff was under doctor’s orders to give Farrar one dose of MiraLAX, an over-the-counter laxative, each morning, but frequently failed to give her the medicine over a number of months. After Celebration Way’s failure to give her any prescribed MiraLAX in March 2004, and only five doses in April, Farrar became seriously constipated. Her doctor prescribed enemas, which the facility’s staff failed to administer as directed. On May 29, 2004, the nursing staff gave Farrar an enema without first checking her abdomen. The enema caused Ferrar’s colon to rupture and she died shortly thereafter.
Farrar’s daughters sued, alleging that Americare’s failure to adequately staff Celebration Way caused or contributed to her death. The jury agreed and returned a verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against Americare, ruling that there was no evidence that understaffing caused Farrar’s death.
The Tennessee Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sharon G. Lee, ruled that the plaintiffs presented material evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Celebration Way was understaffed, that Americare knew it and failed to remedy it, and that the lack of sufficient staff was a substantial factor causing Farrar’s death. The Supreme Court reinstated the jury verdict against Americare for compensatory damages but remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to review the punitive damages award.
To read the Wilson v. Americare Systems, Inc. opinion authored by Justice Sharon G. Lee, visit the opinions section of tncourts.gov.

Supreme Court Hears Photo ID Arguments

1 Reply

By Sheila Burke, Associated Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee’s Supreme Court was asked Wednesday to decide whether the state’s voter ID law deprives people of the right to vote or if it’s a necessary safeguard to prevent election fraud. And in a related issue, the court must determine whether a city-issued library card with a photo can be used as identification to vote.
The court heard arguments from the city of Memphis and two residents who are challenging the law. The city and the individual plaintiffs sued the state last year after election officials refused to accept a city-issued library card with a photo as voter identification.
The state attorney general’s office argued that that the library card is issued by the city while the state’s voter ID law passed in 2011 requires either a state-issued photo ID, federal identification or an ID issued from another state. Janet M. Kleinfelter, a deputy attorney general, also said the law was not so onerous that it would deprive people of the right to vote.
But attorneys representing the city said the votes of 650 people have not been counted in the last two elections because they lacked the proper identification.

Continue reading →

Some Concerned About Making Court Arguments Public

Leave a reply

A recent Tennessee Supreme Court rule change that will make oral arguments from all of the state’s appeals courts available online has delivered a shock to some appeals court judges and family law attorneys, reports The Tennessean.
Under current rules, oral arguments from the Court of Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court are available by request and for a nominal fee — usually about $20.
But in a little-noticed policy change in the name of “transparency and openness of the courts” expected to take effect this spring, digital recordings of all oral arguments in appeals courts will be available online at no cost.
The action has led some, including Appeals Court Judge Frank Clement, to voice concern that it could complicate the lives of children whose parents are going through messy divorces, not to mention “cast a dark cloud” over the parents themselves, according to a letter Clement recently wrote to the high court.
“I’m very concerned about Internet bullying, harassing and abuse,” Clement said in a telephone interview. “This is not about the courts keeping secrets. It’s about preventing children from being abused and bullied.”
Michele Wojciechowski, a Tennessee Supreme Court spokeswoman, said giving the public open access to the courts is important. That said, she noted that the court is now devising a way to “mitigate possible abuse.” The court will catalog complaints over the program’s one-year trial period.

Supremes to Rule on Rape Victim as Accomplice in Crime

Leave a reply

Under Tennessee law, a victim of statutory rape can be considered an accomplice in the crime against her, reports the Tennessean. That could change soon.
The state Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case involving a 14-year-old girl from Arkansas and a Memphis man, which could lead it to dust off and possibly overturn the arcane interpretation of the law. The rule, which has gone unchallenged for more than a century, emerged from an 1895 incest case in which a Tennessee court found no “evidence of force” in a case involving an uncle having sex with his niece.
The high court recently agreed to hear the case of Dewayne Collier, whom a Shelby County jury convicted in 2010 of aggravated statutory rape. Collier, through his attorneys, has maintained his innocence from the outset.
The court ruled, however, that both could be convicted of incest. To have such an interpretation on the books in the 21st century is an outrage, some observers say.
“We cannot expect victims to feel safe enough to break free and seek relief when they face the prospect of being victimized again by our legal system,” said Cathy Gurley, executive director of You Have the Power, a victims’ rights organization.
The rule, she said, “undermines society’s obligation to protect children.”
In its final appeal stage, the high court expressed keen interest in the thorny questions raised by Collier’s case: Can the victim of a sexual offense be a criminal accomplice? If so, do prosecutors need supporting evidence beyond an accomplice’s testimony to convict a defendant?
Both questions, according to legal experts, have far-reaching implications for how sex crimes are prosecuted in Tennessee.