Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1997

Herbert Carson Branum v. City of Maynardville, Paul Bowman, Bill P. Graves, Russell Gillenwater, Len Padgett, and H.E. Richardson

Herbert Carson Branum v. City of Maynardville, Paul Bowman, Bill P. Graves, Russell Gillenwater, Len Padgett, and H.E. Richardson
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided November 6, 1997 · Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

Herbert Carson Branum v. City of Maynardville, Paul Bowman, Bill P. Graves, Russell Gillenwater, Len Padgett, and H.E. Richardson

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED January 6, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk HERBERT CARSON BRANUM ) UNI ON COUNTY ) 03A01- 9604- CH- 00127 Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt ) ) ) v. ) HON. BI LLY J OE W TE, HI ) CHANCELLOR ) CI TY OF M AYNARDVI LLE, PAUL ) BOW AN, M BI LL P. GRAVES, ) RUSSELL GI LLENWATER, LEN ) PADGETT a nd H. E. RI CHARDSON ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

BYRON D. BRYANT OF KNOXVI LLE FOR APPELLANT J ON G. ROACH OF KNOXVI LLE FOR APPELLEES

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Pl a i nt i f f He r be r t Ca r s on Br a num a ppe a l s di s mi s s a l of h i s s ui t a ga i ns t t he Ci t y of M yna r dvi l l e a nd i t s Commi s s i one r s , a s e e k i n g r e i ns t a t e me nt t o h i s pos i t i on a s W t e r Commi s s i one r a n d a

Th e c a s e wa s d i s mi s s e d a t t he conc l us i on of M . r Br a n u m' s p r o o f . d a ma g e s f or hi s wr ongf ul di s c ha r ge , bot h c ompe ns a t or y a nd e x e mp l a r y. He a l s o s e e ks a n or de r e nj oi ni ng t he De f e nda nt s " f r o m a n y f u r t he r ul t r a vi r e s a c t s a ga i ns t t he Pl a i nt i f f " b a s e d upon h i s c o n t e nt i on t ha t t he y ha d vi ol a t e d c e r t a i n of our St a t e St a t ut e s .

The c ompl a i nt i n ma j or pa r t s e e ks r e l i e f unde r t he Te n n e s s e e Gove r nme nt a l Tor t Li a bi l i t y Ac t f or whi c h t he Ci r c ui t Co u r t of t hi s St a t e h a s e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on. T. C. A. 2 9- 20- 307. I n l i ght of t hi s a n d t he f a c t t he s ui t wa s br ought i n t h e Ch a n c e r y Cour t , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t ha t we a f f i r m di s mi s s a l of t he c a s e , n ot on t he me r i t s but be c a us e t he Cha nc e r y Cour t l a c ks j ur i s d i c t i on t o h e a r i t .

I n c onc l us i on, we r e c ogni z e t ha t s ome of t he r e l i e f s o u g h t , s uc h a s a n i nj unc t i on a ga i ns t t he Ci t y Commi s s i one r s , mi g h t p r ope r l y be ma i nt a i ne d i n Cha nc e r y Cour t . Howe ve r , we b e l i e v e i n t he i nt e r e s t of j us t i c e t o bot h pa r t i e s , i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t ha t a l l i s s ue s be t r i e d t oge t he r r a t he r t ha n b i f u r c a t e d, whi c h pr ompt e d t he de t e r mi na t i on whi c h we ha ve r e a c he d.

T. C. A. 29- 20- 307 as per t i ne nt t o t hi s appe a l pr ovi de s t he f o l l o wi n g : 29- 20- 307. Ex c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n - - No j u r y . - - Th e c i r c ui t cour t s s ha l l have exc l us i ve or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on over any a c t i on br ought unde r t hi s c h a pt e r a nd s h a l l he a r a nd de c i de s u c h s u i t s wi t h o u t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a j u r y , . . .

For t he f or e goi n g r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Co u r t , but not i t s r e a s oni ng, i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nd e d f o r c ol l e c t i on o f c os t s b e l ow, whi c h a r e , a s a r e c os t s of a ppe a l , a d j u d g e d one - ha l f a ga i ns t M . Br a num a nd one - ha l f a ga i ns t t he r De f e nd a nt s .

_______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________ ______ He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.