Court Rulings

Objections to magistrate's decision overruled in workers compensation original action brought by injured worker. No abuse of discretion by Industrial Commission of Ohio in denying ongoing psychological counseling recommended by psychologist professional who was not a psychiatrist. Issue of the psychologist's qualifications was waived for purposes of mandamus action when not first administratively addressed at the commission. Magistrate's decision adopted and writ of mandamus denied.

Civil contempt, child support order, permanent partial disability. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt for failure to pay child support. The stipulated medical evidence demonstrated that appellant was able to perform sedentary employment activities as reflected by the workers' compensation award of permanent partial disability.

Workers' compensation compensability of injury employer-funded disability payment credit Industrial Commission's authority to amend deputy commissioner's opinion and award issue preservation

Trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellant's employer and the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation on the basis of res judicata was improper where one of appellant's prior workers' compensation claims was vacated prior to adjudication and a question of fact exists as to whether the other prior claim involved the same injury alleged in the present claim.

Sibling shareholders, unable to agree on the management of the family business, brought their dispute to court. Eventually, the brothers and sisters agreed that the business should be dissolved and, under the court's supervision, sold as a going concern. After soliciting bids from the siblings, the court approved the sale of the business's assets to one brother and two of his sisters. Pending the closing, the court ordered the siblings to continue to operate the business as usual and to preserve the goodwill of the business, including the relationships with employees, suppliers, and customers. The day after the closing, the brother who was not part of the winning bidder group opened a competing business. The winning bidders sought damages from the competing sibling, claiming that he willfully violated court orders, breached his fiduciary duty, and intentionally interfered with business relations. After a bench trial, the court awarded the winning bidders compensatory damages in an aggregate amount for all claims. In the first appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the winning bidders' claims were derivative, not direct, and thus they lacked standing. In Keller v. Estate of McRedmond, 495 S.W.3d 852, 877 (Tenn. 2016), our supreme court adopted a new standard for determining whether a shareholder claim is direct or derivative and, applying that standard, held that the winning bidders had standing to pursue their claim that the competing sibling violated the court's orders. So our supreme court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to this Court to review the remaining issues that were properly raised but not addressed in the first appeal. Id. at 882-83. We affirm the trial court's decision to hold the competing sibling in contempt, but we vacate the aggregate award of compensatory damages.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56. The court found that the driver of the car in an accident was not an employee of defendant and there was not a principal-agent relationship between defendant and the driver. Further, the court determined that judicial restraint cautioned against issuing a premature ruling on a potential declaratory judgment claim relative to defendant's automobile liability coverage agreement. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

This appeal arises from a judicial determination of the fair value of dissenters' shares in a corporation. In 2002, King Solomon's Palace, Inc., ("KSP") a corporation created in 1986 for the purpose of establishing a hotel in Pigeon Forge, announced its pending merger into another company, National Parks Resort Lodge Corporation ("Plaintiff"). Johnny Jess Davis ("Davis") was the majority shareholder of KSP. Dissenters Antonio Perfetto and David L. Donohue ("Defendants") each held 50 shares of KSP common stock. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Sevier County ("the Trial Court") seeking a judicial determination of the fair value of Defendants' shares. After a trial, the Trial Court awarded Defendants $186,913 for their shares and $122,876 in attorney's fees and costs. The Trial Court found, in part, that Davis had manipulated and withheld financial information to Defendants' detriment. Plaintiff appeals to this Court, arguing, among other things, that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Court's findings regarding Davis's conduct. Defendants raise an additional issue arguing that the Trial Court set the value of their shares lower than it should have under the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This is the third appeal in this declaratory judgment action. The action seeks a determination of whether a discharged attorney is entitled to compensation for his services in connection with a tort action that settled after his discharge. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that the discharged attorney's right to compensation was governed by a retainer agreement with the client, as modified by a subsequent letter agreement. The retainer agreement entitled the attorney, upon discharge, to compensation calculated at a reasonable hourly rate or one third of any offer made to settle the case, whichever was greater, plus expenses. Because no bona fide settlement offer was made before the attorney was discharged and the attorney provided insufficient evidence of the time he spent on the case, the trial court declared that the discharged attorney was not entitled to compensation. The trial court also awarded sanctions against the attorney for discovery abuse. Upon review, we discern no reversible error. So we affirm.

The Defendant, Larry E. Orozco, was convicted of two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of unlawful employment of a firearm during an attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and seven counts of reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to an effective term of thirty-one years' imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and (3) his sentence was erroneous and excessive. After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.