Home/Court of Appeals of Tennessee/Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman

Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 17, 1997
Docket02A01-9603-CH-00051
StatusPublished

This text of Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman (Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACKSON FILED ________________________________ Jan. 17, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk

ELVI N L. BLANKENSHI P a nd wi f e , ) He nde r s on Count y Cha nc e r y M ARY BLANKENSHI P, a nd W AYNE ) Cour t No. 8635 BLANKENSHI P, ) ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Count e r - ) De f e nda nt s / Appe l l e e s , ) ) v. ) C/ A NO. 02A01- 9603- CH- 00051 ) ALVI S BLANKENSHI P a nd wi f e , ) DOROTHY BLANKENSHI P, a nd ) CHARLES GOODM a nd wi f e , AN ) KATHY GOODM AN, ) ) De f e nda nt s - Count e r - ) Pl a i nt i f f s / Appe l l a n t s . ) _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________________________________________ _ _

Fr o m t he Cha nc e r y Cour t of He nde r s on Count y a t Le xi ngt on, Ho no r a bl e Joe C. M r i s , Judge or

M c ha e l L. W i nm i e an TATUM & TATUM He nde r s on, Te nne s s e e , At t o r ne y f or Appe l l a nt s

Da ni e l J. Pe r ky Le x i n gt on, Te nne s s e e At t o r n e y f or Appe l l e e s

OPI NI ON FI LED:

VACATED AND REMANDED FRANKS, J.

CRAWFORD, P. J. ( W S. ) : ( Conc ur s ) . FARMER, J . : ( Conc ur s )

I n t hi s bounda r y l i ne di s put e t he Tr i a l Cour t

a p p o i nt e d a s ur ve yor who e s t a bl i s he d a bounda r y l i ne be t we e n

t h e p a r t i e s whi c h wa s a d opt e d by t he Tr i a l J udge i n t he De c r e e

i n t hi s c a s e . De f e nda nt s ha ve a ppe a l e d, a s s e r t i ng t he Tr i a l

Co u r t e r r e d i n l i mi t i ng t he i r pr oof a nd i n a dopt i ng t he

b o u n d a r y e s t a bl i s he d by t he s ur ve yor .

At t r i a l , t he pl a i nt i f f s ’ a nd de f e nda nt s ’ s ur ve yo r s

t e s t i f i e d, a nd t wo br ot he r s of t he pa r t i e s . At a poi nt not

r e f l e c t e d i n t he r e c or d, t he Cour t he l d a c onf e r e nc e wi t h t h e

a t t o r n e ys i n c ha mbe r s , a nd a nnounc e d t ha t a s pe c i a l ma s t e r

wo u l d be a ppoi nt e d t o c onduc t a s ur ve y a nd r e por t ba c k t o t h e

c our t .

The Cour t a ppoi nt e d s ur ve yor a s s pe c i a l ma s t e r

r e p o r t e d t o t he Cour t , whe r e upon t he Cour t a nd bot h pa r t i e s

e x a mi n e d t he s ur ve yor . Be f or e a ppe l l a nt ’ s a t t or ne y ha d

c o n c l u de d hi s e xa mi na t i o n, t he Cour t r ul e d t ha t t he ma s t e r ’ s

r e p o r t woul d be a dopt e d i n f ul l .

Tr i a l Cour t s a r e gi ve n wi de di s c r e t i on i n t he

c o n d u c t of t he t r i a l . Br adf or d v . Ci t y of Cl ar k s v i l l e , 885

S. W 2 d 78 ( Te nn. App. 19 94) . . Te s t i mony whi c h i s r e pe t i t i ve or

c u mu l a t i ve ma y be e xc l u de d. Cor de l l v . W d Sc hool Bus M g . , ar f

I nc . , 597 S. W 2d 323 ( Te nn. App. 1980) . . A Cour t ma y, i n t he

i n t e r e s t s of pr e ve nt i ng undue de l a y, pl a c e r e a s ona bl e l i mi t s

2 o n t h e a mount of t i me e a c h s i de ma y us e t o pr e s e nt i t s c a s e o r

t h e n u mbe r of wi t ne s s e s who ma y t e s t i f y. Conl e e v . Tay l or ,

2 8 5 S. W 35, 153 Te nn. 507 ( Te nn. 1926) . . But s e e M Kni ght v . c

Ge n e r a l M or s Cor p. , 908 F. 2d 104, 115 ( 7t h Ci r . 1990) , c e r t . ot

d e n i e d 499 U. S. 919, 111 S. Ct . 1306, 113 L. Ed. 2d 241 ( ?t o

i m o s e a r bi t r a r y l i mi t a t i ons , e nf or c e t he m i nf l e xi bl y, a nd by p

t h e s e me a ns t ur n a f e de r a l t r i a l i nt o a r e l a y r a c e i s t o

s a c r i f i c e t oo muc h of on e good - a c c ur a c y of f a c t ua l

d e t e r mi na t i on - t o obt a i n a not he r - mi ni mi z a t i on of t he t i me

a n d e xpe ns e of l i t i ga t i o n. ?)

W l e l i mi t a t i ons ma y be pr ope r l y ma de on t he hi

p r e s e n t a t i on of e vi de nc e , a pa r t y s houl d be a l l owe d ?f ul l

o p p o r t uni t y t o i nt r oduc e a l l e vi de nc e c ompe t e nt a nd r e l e va n t

t o s u p por t t he c a s e a l l e ge d by hi m. ? 8 8 C. J . S. Tr i a l

§ 5 5 ( b ) ( 1955) ; Hous t on v . Hous t on, 1985 W 4121 ( Te nn. App. L

1985) ; M Car t e r v . M Car t e r , 1996 W 625798 ( Te nn. App. 199 6 ) . c c L

Th e d u e pr oc e s s r i ght t o a f ul l he a r i ng be f or e a c our t

i n c l u d e s t he r i ght t o i n t r oduc e e vi de nc e a nd ha ve j udi c i a l

f i n d i ngs ba s e d upon s uc h e vi de nc e . Bal t i mor e & O. R. Co. v .

Un i t e d St at e s , 298 U. S. 349, 368, 56 S. Ct . 797, 807, 80 L. Ed .

1 2 0 9 ( 1936) ; al s o s e e Bur f or d v . St at e , 845 S. W 2d 204, 20 8 .

( Te n n . 1992) ( mi ni ma l due pr oc e s s r e qui r e s t ha t l i t i ga nt s be

p r o v i de d a n oppor t uni t y f or t he pr e s e nt a t i on of c l a i ms a t a

me a n i n gf ul t i me a nd i n a me a ni ngf ul ma nne r ) .

He r e , t he Cou r t s ua s pont e a ppoi nt e d a s pe c i a l

ma s t e r b e f or e t he pa r t i e s ha d r e s t e d t he i r c a s e s . W n he

a n n o u n c i ng t ha t a s pe c i a l ma s t e r woul d be a ppoi nt e d, t he Cou r t

s t a t e d t ha t whe n t he i nde pe nde nt s ur ve yor de t e r mi ne d a

b o u n d a r y, ?[ t ] ha t ’ s g oi ng t o be whe r e t he l i ne i s . . . [ a ] n d

3 t h a t ’ s - - t ha t ’ s t he wa y i t ’ s goi ng t o ha ve t o be , be c a us e I

c a n ’ t ma ke he a ds nor t a i l s out of t hi s . ?

Subs e que nt l y, t h e s pe c i a l ma s t e r t e s t i f i e d a nd t he

Pl a i n t i f f - Appe l l e e a c c e pt e d t he s ur ve y a nd a gr e e d wi t h t he

s p e c i a l ma s t e r ’ s d e t e r mi na t i on. The De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt

s t a t e d:

we f e e l t he s u r ve y done by M . Bi l l i ngs l e y i s r not wha t t he Cour t ha d a nt i c i pa t e d be i ng done , t ha t i t wa s n o t va l i d, a nd we ’ d a s k t ha t t he Cour t or de r s ome f ur t he r - - f ur t he r a c t i on on t hi s c a s e , a s i n a f ur t he r e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng.

W di d not - - we we r e not a l l owe d t o put on e a l l our e vi de n c e a t t he pr i or he a r i ng. The Cour t ha d he a r d I be l i e ve t wo s ur ve yor s a nd pa r t of one wi t ne s s whe n t he Cour t s a i d, ?W l l , e t hi s i s wha t I wa nt t o do. ? W s t i l l ha ve e ot he r - - W s t i l l ha d a t t ha t poi nt f our or e f i ve wi t ne s s e s t o t e s t i f y. W ha ve ot he r e wi t ne s s e s who - - Not a l l t he wi t ne s s e s c oul d be he r e t oda y be c a us e t hi s wa s not i nt e nde d t o be a n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, i t wa s my unde r s t a ndi ng.

Dur i ng a ppe l l a nt ’ s que s t i oni ng of t he ma s t e r , t he

j u d g e i nt e r r upt e d:

Cour t : I ’ m not goi ng t o l e t you a r gue wi t h hi m . . . [ h] e ’ s a n i nde pe nde nt wi t ne s s . I f i t ha d be e n a ga i ns t t he s e Bl a nke ns hi ps , t he s ur ve y wa s good, i f t he s hoe wa s on t he ot he r f oot , M . W i nma n. r e Tha t ’ s why you ha ve t o ha ve a n i nde pe nde nt s ur ve yor . An d i f I i gnor e d M . Bi l l i ngs l e y, who I do not know, I ’ d r ha ve t o ge t a not he r one a nd we ’ d ha ve t o c r os s t hi s s a me s t r e a m e v e r y t i me unt i l i t s a t i s f i e d a l l pa r t i e s , a nd i t c a n’ t be done .

M .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United States
298 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Gary McKnight Cross-Appellant v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellee
908 F.2d 104 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
Cordell Ex Rel. Cordell v. Ward School Bus Manufacturing, Inc.
597 S.W.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1980)
Burford v. State
845 S.W.2d 204 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1992)
State v. Goad
707 S.W.2d 846 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1986)
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hollingsworth
931 F.2d 1295 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elvin L. Blankenship and wife, Mary Blankenship, and Wayne Blankenship v. Alvis Blankenship and wife, Dorothy Blankenship, and Charles Goodman and wife, Kathy Goodman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elvin-l-blankenship-and-wife-mary-blankenship-and-wayne-blankenship-v-tennctapp-1997.