Bailey Brown

The case involved a dispute over whether the City of Memphis could impose a special assessment on property owned by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to fund downtown improvements under Tennessee's Central Business Improvement Act. The Federal Reserve Bank sought a declaratory judgment that the assessment violated its statutory immunity from taxation under 12 U.S.C. § 531, which exempts federal reserve banks from federal, state, and local taxes except those on real estate. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that special assessments are distinct from taxes on real estate and thus not covered by the statutory exception. The reasoning relied on precedents distinguishing special assessments from real estate taxes, requiring express congressional consent to waive immunity from the former, and applying similar holdings from other circuits construing comparable immunity waivers.

taxesfederal powerproperty

This case arose from an organizing drive by the Teamsters union at Federal Express's Memphis facility, where individual employees alleged that the company violated sections 2 (Third) and (Fourth) of the Railway Labor Act by discharging or transferring them due to union activities, threatening employees, and otherwise coercing them in their choice of bargaining representative. After an earlier order denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing the union as a plaintiff was affirmed on appeal, the district court addressed the remaining individual claims for reinstatement, back pay, seniority, and broad injunctive relief. The court found that the employer's actions, such as ordering an employee to remove a union button under the pretext of safety concerns and citing insubordination, were actually motivated by a desire to suppress union support, constituting unlawful interference. It therefore granted relief to the affected employees and issued an injunction prohibiting further coercive conduct, reasoning that such violations chilled employees' statutory rights even absent an ongoing organizing campaign.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case was a diversity action by a bank against guarantors on a 1964 continuing guaranty agreement securing a $600,000 promissory note from a subcontractor that later ceased operations, leaving an unpaid balance of $98,274.71 that was renewed in a 1974 note. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment against defendant Ben Markowitz and denied his cross-motion, rejecting his defenses of statute of limitations, laches, negligent failure to perfect security interests or pursue other remedies, and material alterations to the debt. The core reasoning was that the guaranty was absolute and continuing until terminated in writing and all debts paid, each new note restarted the limitations period under Tennessee law, laches does not apply to legal claims, and the guaranty expressly waived any UCC duties regarding collateral while the cited cases did not require a different result.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Smith v. Lewis Ford, Inc., the plaintiff sued three defendants including Union Planters National Bank for alleged violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act, claiming that certain charges in a truck installment sales agreement were not individually itemized and that disclosures were not clear and conspicuous. The bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b), arguing it was not a creditor under the Act or that disclosure responsibility fell only on the seller. The court denied the motion, holding that the bank was a creditor because it regularly extended credit in such financed sales, that Regulation Z did not exempt it from disclosure duties, and that the Act required individual itemization of the fees, though a Federal Reserve staff interpretation could provide an affirmative defense to be raised on summary judgment rather than dismissal.

business & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action brought by Alco Standard Corporation against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, alleging unauthorized use of Alco's patent for ultrasonic bore inspection systems in TVA facilities, along with related unfair competition claims against Westinghouse. Alco sought reasonable compensation from TVA under Section 19 of the TVA Act and injunctive relief, treble damages, and other remedies from Westinghouse. The court dismissed all claims against Westinghouse, ruling that Section 19 provides the exclusive remedy against TVA (including for authorized contractors) for use of patented inventions, so Westinghouse's work for TVA could not constitute acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and thus failed to state a claim and lacked proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The court also dismissed the pendent state-law unfair competition claims as a matter of discretion after the federal claims against Westinghouse were eliminated.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case challenged the adequacy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' revised Environmental Impact Statement for the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, a flood control effort authorized by Congress involving channel enlargement and realignment on the Obion and Forked Deer Rivers. The court held that the EIS failed to satisfy NEPA standards. The opinion focused solely on NEPA compliance after prior rulings had addressed other statutes and enjoined further work. The EIS adequately covered some land-use changes but omitted essential details on existing flood frequency, duration, extent, geographic variations, seasonal effects, and comparative projections of project impacts, preventing a full assessment of unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

environmentfederal power

In Dunkin v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., plaintiffs Gail and Russell Dunkin sued the manufacturers of Norinyl birth control pills after Gail suffered a stroke, alleging negligent failure to warn of risks to the patient, breach of express warranties, and strict liability in tort under Tennessee law. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. It reasoned that a prescription drug manufacturer's duty to warn extends only to physicians and the medical community, not directly to patients, and that the provided warnings in the Physicians' Desk Reference, package inserts, and patient leaflets adequately identified the risk of cerebrovascular accidents. The court further held that the pills were not unreasonably dangerous given the warnings, that no express warranty was breached, and that one defendant had no involvement in manufacturing or distributing the product.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff John E. Jones sued the City of Memphis and unidentified police officers for damages, alleging an illegal arrest and beating that violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismissed the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, holding that a municipality is not a "person" under § 1983, that § 1981 requires an allegation of racial discrimination which was absent here, and that vicarious liability does not apply under those statutes. However, the court allowed the action to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, determining that it had federal question jurisdiction over a direct constitutional claim against the city modeled on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, and that the city could potentially be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior even without allegations of its own negligence or condonation. The decision was based on precedents like City of Kenosha v. Bruno and Hanna v. Drobnick, while noting the absence of any release or covenant not to sue that would bar the claim under Tennessee law.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case is a legal malpractice action in which the Woodruff sisters sued their former attorneys for alleged negligence in investigating, trying, and appealing their personal injury claims stemming from a 1968 car accident in Tennessee. After the underlying personal injury suits resulted in defense verdicts, the malpractice case went to trial but ended in a mistrial; the district court then granted the defendants' motion for judgment n.o.v. and dismissed the suit. The court reasoned that even assuming negligence occurred, there was no non-speculative evidence that different actions by counsel would have produced a different outcome in the personal injury trials, making proximate causation impossible to establish without guesswork. It also rejected conflict-of-interest claims on similar grounds.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Allen v. Lovejoy, a female employee of the Memphis and Shelby County Health Department was indefinitely suspended without pay for refusing to change her name to her husband's on personnel forms pursuant to a department policy that applied only to married women. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff's claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and other provisions. It reasoned that the plaintiff had no property interest deprivation without due process because she declined an offered appeal to the Merit System Council, that the policy was reasonable and did not violate equal protection, and that it did not constitute the type of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns an EEOC lawsuit against Humko Products alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in employment practices. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by the 180-day filing period or Tennessee's statute of limitations, that the EEOC failed to follow required conciliation procedures, that the charging party had withdrawn the charge, and that no factual basis existed. Relying on Sixth Circuit precedent in EEOC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., the court denied the motion to reconsider its prior order and rejected the time-bar arguments, but held that statutory and regulatory conciliation requirements must be met as a prerequisite to suit. The court therefore ordered further argument and a hearing limited to whether the EEOC complied with those procedural conciliation rules, while denying the plaintiff's motion to strike supporting affidavits.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition by Joe Louis Peete, a Tennessee prisoner serving concurrent sentences for rape and assault to commit murder following a guilty plea. Peete claimed his public defenders provided inadequate representation and that his plea was not voluntary because counsel warned him he had 'fucked up,' faced a 'Ku Klux jury' likely to impose the death penalty, and had little chance of a fair trial. The district court agreed the plea was involuntary due to the coercive effect of counsel's statements, despite thorough investigation and a favorable plea offer, and ordered Peete's release unless the state appeals or retries him within 90 days. The court focused on the plea’s voluntariness rather than counsel’s overall performance, noting Peete understood the charges but was induced to plead guilty by fear.

criminal lawprocedure

In this breach of contract case, Ralston Purina sued farmer F.R. McNabb for failing to deliver the full amount of soybeans specified in two written contracts for November 1972 delivery, after McNabb delivered only about half the total due despite receiving monthly extensions. The parties stipulated facts including severe weather that affected McNabb's operations, and a jury answered interrogatories on whether Ralston Purina acted in good faith. The court rejected McNabb's impossibility defense under the UCC because the contracts did not specify crops from particular land. It held that the extensions were not valid modifications due to Ralston Purina's lack of good faith, as the jury found the company knew or should have known McNabb could not perform and the extensions would likely increase damages in a rising market. Accordingly, the court awarded damages calculated under T.C.A. § 47-2-713 as of the original November 30, 1972 deadline, resulting in a judgment of $1,496.59 plus interest.

business & regulatory

Bunge Corporation sued West Tennessee farmer Charles Miller for breach of two August 1972 contracts to deliver 10,000 bushels of soybeans at $3.30 per bushel for October-November delivery, after Miller delivered only a portion and stated in February 1973 that weather conditions prevented full performance. Following jury findings on extensions and an oral understanding regarding damages, the court held Miller liable for the 8,305.68 bushels not delivered, with damages measured by the difference between contract and market price as of November 30, 1972, offset by amounts owed Miller for a January 1973 delivery. The court reasoned that parol evidence of the parties' understanding was admissible to limit damages despite unilateral extensions by Bunge, and that Miller could not invoke impossibility because the contracts were not tied to a specific crop and he failed to give seasonable notice of inability to perform.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge to the Secretary of Transportation's approval of federal funding for an interstate highway segment through Overton Park in Memphis under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, which requires a determination that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist to using parkland and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm. After the Supreme Court remanded for plenary review and the district court further remanded to the Secretary, Secretary Volpe issued a decision disapproving the route through the park, citing the lack of a valid finding under Section 4(f), requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal-Aid Highway Act, noise standards, and Supreme Court guidance emphasizing paramount protection for parkland. The district court reviewed this disapproval, concluding that the Secretary was obligated to make the required statutory findings and to specify respects in which the proposal would violate NEPA and other provisions, while holding that the decision is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act; the court also addressed prior rulings on design approval and ordered a prompt remand for a new decision within 45 days.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission suing a Memphis municipal bond firm, Tax Free Bonds, and several of its officers and employees for alleged violations of federal securities laws. The SEC claimed that from March 1971 onward, the defendants engaged in fraudulent practices under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including charging excessive undisclosed markups on bonds and using deceptive sales tactics, and sought a preliminary injunction plus disgorgement of profits. After a hearing with affidavits, expert testimony, and witness accounts from both sides, the court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction against the remaining defendants who had not already consented to permanent relief. The decision rested on findings that the defendants' pricing and disclosure practices deviated from industry norms and constituted fraud, with evidence showing markups far exceeding the typical 0.25% to 5% range and failures to inform customers of material facts.

business & regulatory

The case involved Henry L. Knight suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the wrongful death of his son, Corporal John Dawson Knight, who drowned in a military swimming pool at the Naval Air Station in Millington, Tennessee, while on authorized liberty. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claim was barred. The core reasoning was that the serviceman's injury occurred while he was on base and subject to military discipline, rendering it incident to service under the Feres doctrine from Feres v. United States, even though no specific military orders were being followed at the time of the drowning.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves four defendants charged with distributing or aiding in the distribution of sixty pounds of marijuana. The defendants moved to suppress the marijuana seized from the trunk of a car without a warrant during their arrest following an undercover operation. The court denied the motion, finding that officers had probable cause based on the defendants' statements and actions indicating the marijuana was in the trunk. The court reasoned that a warrant was not required because the search involved an automobile, occurred promptly at the scene of the arrest late at night, and involved contraband with probable cause tied to the arrests.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by individuals, hunting clubs, and environmental groups against the Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers, challenging the Corps' ongoing river channel enlargement and realignment project on the Obion and Forked Deer rivers in Tennessee as violating federal statutes including 33 U.S.C. § 701c and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as informed by NEPA. The court ruled that it could not review the Secretary's acceptance of state assurances under § 701c due to agency discretion and that plaintiffs lacked standing because their ecological interests were not within the statute's zone of protected interests. It further held that the Corps must submit an updated mitigation plan to Congress before proceeding with remaining project items like the Mengelwood work, interpreting the 1958 Act in light of NEPA's requirements for environmental considerations. The court scheduled a plenary hearing to assess compliance with NEPA's interdisciplinary approach and environmental impact statement standards.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Albert William Hale, a Tennessee prisoner serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, challenging his 1965 conviction. Hale initially attacked the admission of his statement at trial and later added claims that Negroes were systematically excluded from serving as grand jury foremen and that evidence from an unconstitutional search was improperly admitted. After the petitioner exhausted state remedies on the new claims, the court reviewed the record and applicable precedents such as Whitus v. Georgia and determined that factual disputes required resolution. The court therefore ordered an evidentiary hearing to investigate the grand jury foreman selection process and the search-and-seizure issue, while noting that the petitioner must specify the evidence allegedly obtained illegally.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure