History
  • No items yet
midpage
Clark v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
827 S.W.2d 312
Tenn. Ct. App.
1991
Check Treatment

*1 20-5-110. Action death

spouse. (a) wrongful A suit for the — of the killing brought in spouse may spouse for the surviving the name of the of himself and benefit the children surviving spouse, or the name spouse of the deceased

administrator of kin of the name next spouse. judge opinion The trial provisions control- section were you ling and “unless the surviv- have children, is no ing spouse or then there of a wrongful cause of action for the death dis- respectfully married female.”1 We view, agree. T.C.A. 20-5-110 is a our legislative designation permissibly of those to maintain an in their own

enabled action Clearly right belongs name. action designated by T.C.A. persons to those plaintiff, qualifying kin, may next of maintain this action. Accordingly, reverse the we dismissing the court the action and remand pro- the case the trial court for further ceedings. are taxed to Costs appellee. FRANKS, JJ., concur. GODDARD CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, L. Connie OF GOVERNMENT METROPOLITAN AND COUN NASHVILLE DAVIDSON TY, Respondent-Appellee. Appeals of

Court of Section, at Nashville. Middle 11, 1991.

Oct. Appeal Application for Permission by Supreme Denied March the intend indicative of legislature repealed would seem to be We note that wrongful death legislature render captioned “Wrongful death T.C.A.§ 20-5-109 “gender neutral.” of action. statute to cause married woman —Succession *2 Herbison, Nashville,

John E. petition- er-appellant. Jones, Law,

Susan Short Director of Wil- Parker, Jr., liam L. Metropolitan Atty., Law, Dept, Nashville, respondent- appellee.

OPINION

TODD, Presiding Judge. Clark, plaintiff, ap- Connie L. pealed ruling upon plain- from an adverse tiff’s seeking for certiorari interloc- utory relief from the action of the Metro- politan granting General Sessions Court in supporting leave to amend an affidavit metropolitan violating citation for a munici- pal ordinance.

—History of the Case— 9, 1990, plaintiff On November filed Circuit Court a “Petition for the Writ of petition alleged Certiorari”. The the fol- lowing: May 1. On an officer of the Metropolitan Department plain- Police cited appear tiff to before July Sessions Court on on a charge Code violation 34-1-1, “Resisting Interfering with Officers”. July 23, plaintiff legal filed a on the Based memorandums filed by counsel, counsel, for defects the cita- argument

motion dismiss law, tion. applicable specifically Murff State, 111], 425 S.W.2d 286 [221 *3 Metropolitan Government moved (Tenn.1967), this Court finds that citation, the was to amend motion granted. (1) original the Affidavit stated “con- sufficiently constitutionally duct” Metropolitan the October bring Petitioner’s actions within the Sessions entered an order Court Metropolitan scope of 34- Code Section the interlocutory review of order was 1-1; and appropriate. (2) original gave the Petition- Affidavit prayers fol- of the were as charge er sufficient notice of the lows: her; against and A) Certiorari, That return- the Writ (3) the amended Affidavit filed Of- proceed- and able to issue the change Burnett Terry ficer did not the ings Metropolitan of the General Ses- add a new nature the offense or brought up to sions Court be this Court offense. for review and revision.

B) That reverse action this Court the this Court finds that the Metropolitan General Sessions Metropolitan Judge properly acted Court permitting in the Court amendment of Metropolitan in allowing the Government affidavit of Burnett remand Officer and to amend the to the citation Affidavit this cause for further on the this case issued Petitioner remands original Metropolitan Misdemeanor Cita- Metropolitan to be tried on the Court tion. sup- its the citation merits on

C) Affidavit, That the costs action be ported by the amended it Respondent. to the taxed is so ORDERED. Costs are assessed against D) gen- the Petitioner. That she have such further or may relief as be entitled. eral she by appellant stated is as sole issue for A fiat the writ of certiorari was follows: Clerk, the signed by the Trial writ was grant- in the trial court erred Whether by the and the in issued Trial Clerk record sum- pleadings on the judgment the General Sessions Court transmit- Respon- in the mary judgment favor of ted to the Trial Court. Metropolitan dent-Appellee Government. Metropolitan After answer above, of her issue stated support Government, for plaintiff moved following arguments: plaintiff makes the pleadings. on ex- appropriately A. The Court Circuit following The Trial Court entered initially in supervisory power its ercised order: interlocutory review accepting This matter came before this Honora- proceedings. Metropolitan Court day January, on the 11th ble Court facts permit B. the statement of To Judg- Motion for on Petitioner’s on the amended municipal citation having Pleadings, the ment on the case day prior notice trial without Metropolitan from Court come Con- State and Federal violates accused Petition Writ review guarantees. stitutional issued Petitioner had been of Certiorari. by the Met- procedure C. The followed interfering with a citation for an excess ropolitan Court indicates Metropolitan Code officer violation Court. upon such jurisdiction conferred Judge granted The Trial Section 34-1-1. alternative, Metropolitan D. In the Amend Affi- Motion to Respondent’s permitting illegally Court acted citation and Peti- supporting the davit of the affidavit. amendment appealed. tioner Original Burrow, (5 Lea.) —The Nature of the Action— Bristol (1880); City Chattanooga, Meaher v. complaint alleges plaintiff (1 Head) (1858); Aizenshatt municipal cited for violation of a Jackson, Mayor City and Aldermen of of Nash- Government (1 Higgins) 1 Tenn. CCA County, ville and Davidson Tennessee. Pleadings in a civil case before of General Ses General Sessions Court are “ore tenus” sions is authorized to hear civil actions (oral, court), in open except plea where the government municipal for violations required is to be under Craig oath. its ordinances and criminal actions for vio Collins, Tenn.App.1974, 524 S.W.2d 947. (Charter lation of criminal statutes. State *4 ordinarily brought Civil actions are in Gen Government of Nash by eral Sessions Court a “civil warrant” County, Arti ville and Davidson designation which includes a XIV, 14.02). type of cle Sec. appear action and a notice to for trial. municipal A violation of a ordinance exceptions, With certain civil warrants are partakes wrong. more or less of a civil required supported by not to be affidavit. State, Phillips, Hill v. ex 216 Tenn. rel. warrant, metropolitan po lieu of a civil 503, (1965). 392 S.W.2d 950 apparently lice officers use a “citation” or Cases General Ses “ticket” as which serves a civil warrant. sions Court of Nashville and Davidson such, required supported it is not to be County represented by “metropolitan war affidavit, at either the time of service or actions, procedures” rants and are tri civil case, present at the trial. upon appeal able de novo to the Circuit amendatory affidavit and the Court. Metro. Gov’t. Nash. & Davidson of unnecessary. allegation affidavit were Allen, Tenn.1975, Cty. v. 529 S.W.2d 699. affidavit, might of if the first unamended scope plaintiff’s have limited charges a only Where warrant action. The written amendment no ordinance, city violation of a it is con more and no less than an oral amendment only process, sidered as a civil and techni permissible long which so as defen nicety pleading required. cal of is not Gui opportunity pre dant was allowed a fair 13, City Memphis, di v. 196 Tenn. 263 of pare a defense to it. 532, (1954). S.W.2d involving city Cases violations of ordi- Appellant argues that the issuance prosecutions, nances are not criminal but represents upon of a citation a restraint nature, civil in having object rather as their liberty. agree. does not A relations; of vindication domestic municipal court for violation of a citation to they to Circuit are triable de ordinance is no more and no less than the procedural novo the same rules those deputy service a sheriff of a civil war governing tort actions instituted in General appear in Court to rant to General Sessions Briggs City Sessions Courts. v. Union grocery defend a civil action of debt for Tenn.1975, City, 531 S.W.2d 106. bill. potential that the prosecution violating Appellant for an act asserts fifty (judg- imposition of a dollar fine city ordinance is a civil and not a criminal ment) deprivation property. governed by potential is a proceeding and is rules civil agree. potential Knoxville, does not City 214 This Court cases. O’Dell v. 756; of a 237, property loss in a citation for violation Tenn.App. 379 54 S.W.2d 59, (1964). city is no more and no less than 388 S.W.2d 150 any loss from other potential property City Chattanooga, See also Geitch v. judgment and prosecuted suit if civil 245, (1953); City 195 Tenn. 776 S.W.2d execution. Memphis Smythe, 104 Tenn. of S.W. 215 (1900); Lewis, rights applicable process are City Sparta While due suits; and nu- (1892); the extensive 23 S.W. 182 Town to some civil and in all cases where an inferior tribu- pronouncements regarding law judicial merous invariably not process exercising judicial in criminal cases are nal functions has conferred, applicable to civil cases. jurisdiction or is exceeded there is no other acting illegally or where constitutional There is no violation of adequate plain, speedy, remedy. or T.C.A. orderly peaceful and service of rights in an 27-8-101. appear in or other notice to a summons court and defend a civil action. of certiorari lies at com Patera, 772 Appellant cites Bacon v. pro supervise mon to review and law (1985), private F.2d wherein a detective tribunals, ceedings but does not of inferior threatening to arrest police sued a chief error, appeal writ of place take the harassing by repeatedly issu- him him brings up record to deter the entire city ordi- for violation of citations has been an excess or mine whether there detectives, ordi- regarding nance pro jurisdiction, or failure to absence enforcement nance did not authorize require according to the essential ceed complaint otherwise. citation or City the law. ments of Conners seizures, searches and charged unlawful Knoxville, 189 S.W. intimidation, mali- harassment and of due *5 prosecution, and violation cious Statutory certiorari lies: recognized court process. appellate The diminution; suggestion of 1. on of 42 U.S.C. possibility of a violation the given; is position of official 2. where no by misuse § of citations for by repeated harass issuance appeal; 3. a for as substitute remanded for non existent violations and Querela; instead of Audita opinion possibility. exploration of Error. T.C.A. instead of Writ placing a citation for authority not for is same city the violation of any of occa is unaware Court warrants or indictments status as arrest extraordinary of certio- the writ sion when prosecutions. initiating criminal granting the to review rari has been issued repeated, persistent, malicious in Circuit pleading amend a civil of leave to by public institution of civil Court; occasion much less an Chancery or public authority in the name of a official issued Chancery Court or when a Circuit under 42 U.S.C. may support an action ruling by a Mu review such a the writ to al circumstances are but no such There is Court. nicipal or General Sessions present in the case. leged or shown ruling in such a adequate remedy for error complains that her Appellant Court Municipal Sessions by a or General by permitting an rights violated were right appeal as in the de novo affida citation to add an amendment will moments reflection Circuit Court. in the of facts not included vit resulting the chaos picture of produce a ex previously in the citation. affidavit for multitudinous way opening from subject to amend the citation plained, Courts interlocutory applications Circuit any of fairness as ment under conditions rulings interlocutory review to obtain pleading in Sessions General other civil Sessions Courts. Municipal and General Court. which might arise situation An extreme right appellant was No constitutional issuance of a writ justify the would permitting the amendment violated ruling interlocutory an to review certiorari warrant). (civil There is no citation case; in civil a General Sessions trial forced to showing appellant by the reflects no action record but investigate and con- opportunity without which Sessions Court Metropolitan General of the amendment. allegations trovert the extraordinary process of justify would certiorari. —The Writ Certiorari— available is not remedy of certiorari grant The constitutional basis or unusual under granted is right, but as authorized of certiorari is as ing a writ extraordinary circumstances. It is institut- Ms. Clark moved to dismiss the citation compe- in the application ed an to a court of Sessions alleging may Ordinance No. jurisdiction may tent not 34-1-1 was unconstitutional and that authorize the writ. Since there was no not make out a violation of the certiorari, citation did legitimate cause for the writ of city On October ordinance. erroneously granted. it was permission to file a more de- moved petition for certiora- The dismissal of the transpired tailed account of what at Ms. amounting ri to a denial of the writ of general home. The sessions court Clark’s autho- certiorari was correct. Such action city’s granted granted the motion but also proceed rized the General Sessions Court to Ms. motion for a continuance to Clark’s though no for the had been her to seek review of enable filed. decision in the circuit court. its If a the correct Trial Court reaches 7, 1990, Ms. filed a On November Clark result, judgment its is entitled to affirm petition for a common law writ of certiorari irrespective of stated. ance the reasons County. in the Circuit Court for Davidson Corp., Benson v. U.S. Steel signed The circuit court the fiat on Novem- 465 S.W.2d 12, 1990, and the clerk issued the writ ber of the Trial Court dismiss- of certiorari on November costs, ing this suit is affirmed. All includ- January court entered circuit costs Circuit Court are taxed finding general an order that the sessions against plaintiff. The cause is remand- properly permitted court acted when it ed to the Trial Court for collection of costs. city an account of the to file amended thereupon circuit court re- offense. The Affirmed and remanded. *6 the case to be tried on the merits. manded CANTRELL, J., concurs. appealed from the circuit Ms. Clark has court’s decision. KOCH, J., separate opinion. concurs in KOCH, Judge, concurring. II. majority proper has reached the re- provides law writ of certiorari common However, separate opinion sult. I file this a court to a case from a vehicle for remove pro-

because this case should be decided on to determine a lower tribunal whether grounds cedural alone. The common law proceed a failure accord there has been of certiorari should not used as a writ be requirements to the essential appealing general vehicle for sessions Gatlinburg Regulation law. Beer Comm. 891, Ogle, court’s decisions when Tenn. 185 Tenn. 206 S.W.2d v. writ, (1948). discretionary (1980) 893 It is a provides Code Ann. an § 713-14, Williams, 704, Boyce v. 215 adequate appeal procedure. I 272, (1965), and should not 389 S.W.2d majority’s concur with conclusion seeking granted person if the it has “erroneously granted,” but I writ adequate appellate remedies. Pack other join in the remainder of the ma- decline 452, Cos., 224 Tenn. Royal-Globe Ins. jority’s opinion. 19, (1970); Tragle 457 S.W.2d Burdette, I. 438 S.W.2d (1969). help Connie Clark called the Terry Burnette re- May 1990. Officer general ses- dissatisfied with the Parties the call and had some sort of sponded to statutory have a court’s decision sions he with Ms. Clark while altercation in the circuit court. right to another trial apparently 27-5-108(a). men questioning three who had Ann. Tenn.Code See § house trail- means fighting near Ms. Clark’s court is de novo which been trial in circuit result, anew. Burnette issued case is tried See simply er. As a Officer 27-5-108(c); interfering Allen a citation for with a Ann. Ms. Clark Tenn.Code Head) 436, (1 Wood, in police officer violation of appellant’s disingenuous Contrary to the 34-1-1. Ordinance No. parties during argument, assertions in

may assert the same claims and defenses they circuit court that asserted general sessions court. prepared general sessions court was hear Ms. case on the merits Clark’s

October, All these later pre- unnecessary have been had she would Had she been dissatisfied with the vailed. outcome, have obtained a de novo she could where she could trial the circuit court have raised all the claims and defenses she proceeding.

seeks to raise in this certiorari now, things months stand over sixteen elapsed the issuance of the cita- have since tion, and this matter is still not resolved. appeals intended to

Interlocutory are needless, expensive, protracted prevent folly litigation. This case demonstrates circumventing Tenn. Ann. 27-5- Code Making the writ available circum- provide only as this one stances such will delay their defendants with the means court and will general trials in sessions prevent protracted liti- promote rather than should have sum- gation. The circuit court marily denied Ms. Clark’s of certiorari. *7 TURNER,

Timothy W. Appellee, Plaintiff/ NASHVILLE, COMPANY OF ALDOR Defendant, INC., Corporation Indiana Door Overhead Corporation, Corporation, Dallas a/k/a Defendants/Appellants. Appeals Section, Nashville. Middle at 20, 1991. Nov. Appeal Application for Permission Supreme Court Denied 16, 1992. March

Case Details

Case Name: Clark v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Date Published: Oct 11, 1991
Citation: 827 S.W.2d 312
Court Abbreviation: Tenn. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In