Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

Justice Birch resigned yesterday; the effective date of the resignation is August 31, 2006.

Justice Birch has served the State of Tennessee as a judge for 43 years, beginning as a General Sessions Judge, then serving 9 years as a trial judge and 19 years as an appellate judge. [Bio] His service on the Tennessee Supreme Court will be best remembered for his insistence that citizens accused of crimes receive a fair shake in the criminal justice system and his steady opposition to imposition of the death penalty given the current circumstances that give rise to its imposition. He is a man of courage and conviction. His leadership will be missed.

This resignation follows that of Justice Anderson earlier this week.
We now have two openings on our five member court. The Governor will be able to select two judges from panels provided to him by the Judicial Selection Commission. Under our rules, no more than two judges can come from any one Grand Division. Chief Justice Barker is an East Tennessean, Justice Holder is a West Tennessean, and Justice Clark is a Middle Tennessean. Therefore, one of the appointees can come from any Grand Division but both cannot come from the same Grand Division.

Many tort lawyers in Tennessee also handle worker’s compensation cases. Here, for your reading pleasure, is a summary of the significant worker’s compensation opinions issued by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2005 as prepared by the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Advisory Panel.

The State of Tennessee suffered a blow yesterday when Justice E. Riley Anderson announced that he was stepping down effective August 31, 2006.

Justice Anderson, from Oak Ridge, has served on the Supreme Court for over 15 years and, earlier, served on the Court of Appeals for 3 years. [Bio] He is a compassionate man who understands his responsibility to the people of this State and who fulfilled that responsibility with honor and distinction.

I love his dissent in Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14, 22 (Tenn. 2000) and Dotson v. Blake, 29 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tenn. 2000). His opinion in Hunter v. Ura just one year ago helped bring justice and reason to the resolution of medical negligence cases. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: Justice Anderson will be sorely missed as a member of our Court.

Here is an interesting decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that discusses the liability of a property appraiser who told the plaintiff that “‘he could not himself perform the appraisal’ but [said] that ‘he would find another appraiser and would supervise and review that appraiser’s work.'” Well, the appraisal was wrong and the “supervising appraiser,” who did not charge for his work, was sued.

The Court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the “supervising appraiser,” holding that there was a jury issue on the nature of the relationship between the parties and the extent of the movant’s role in the transaction.

Although this case was decided under Massachusetts law, I bring it to your attention because Tennessee has a number of recent decisions on the issue of “gratuitious undertaking.” (For example, see Biscan v. Brown here and cases cited therein.) Massachusetts law on the subject is a little different than Tennessee law, but the opinion is a nice refresher on the topic.

I have written about the finger-in-the-chili case several times, including this post , and this one, and this one.

Now, Anna and her husband have been sentenced to nine years in prison. Read more here.

I said early on that if this woman (or anyone else) falsifies a claim in an effort to get money they deserve some jail time. And I still believe it. But I think nine years is outrageous, especially when one weighs that sentence against the time other criminals have received for crimes I consider to have imposed a far greater impact on society.

No substantive post today. I went to Knoxville last night to attend a mediation today (Thursday) of a case I am involved in Maryville.

The case did not get resolved but I enjoyed getting to spend some time with my co-counsel (from Seattle) and our client.

Here is a good reason never to refer to someone by a nickname in private unless you would feel comfortable calling him that name to his face.

I have two depositions today and need a little more time to prepare No post today.

I would point out, however, that the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Mid-Winter Convention has a good line-up of speakers and topics this year. The seminar is February 1 in Nashville.

See a brochure here.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has approved amendments to the rules of appellate procedure, civil procedure, juvenile procedure, and evidence. The rules will not take effect until they are approved by the General Assembly. The proposed effective date is July 1, 2006.

The most significant change concerning the duty to supplement discovery. The proposed rule is as follows:

“(1) A party who without substantial justification fails to supplement or amend responses to discovery requests as required by Rule 26.05 is not permitted, unless such failure is harmless, to use as evidence at trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court on motion may impose other appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses (including
attorney fees) caused by the failure, these sanctions may include any of the actions authorized under Rule 37.02(A), (B), and (C) and may include informing the jury of the failure to supplement or amend.”

When should a court rule that a state statute “reforming” tort law (i.e. a law restricting the rights of tort victims) violates our constitution? Here are three interesting articles that discuss the issue, including one from my buddy John Vail in D.C.