SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Gerald Robert Stevens, Laurie Ann Williams, and James Darren Brothers Stevens, et al.
02S01-9712-CC-00112
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

We granted this appeal to determine whether a conclusory allegation in an affidavit that information was provided by a “concerned citizen source” is sufficient to establish the presumptive reliability of the information for the issuance of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.1 There is a distinction in Tennessee law between “citizen informants” and “criminal informants” or those from the criminal milieu. Information provided by an unnamed ordinary citizen is presumed to be reliable, and the affidavit need not establish that the source is credible or that the information is reliable. State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 354 (Tenn. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. 2d 983 (1983). On the other hand, where information is provided by an anonymous criminal informant, the affidavit must establish (1) the basis of the informant’s knowledge, and (2) the reliability of the informant or the information. State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989).
 

Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9711-CC-00240
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellant Edmund George Zagorski has filed a petition to rehear this cause
pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39 contending that our opinion conflicts with and/or
overlooks principles of law regarding trial counsel’s duties to investigate mitigation
evidence and fully advise a defendant regarding a potential mitigation defense. We
have reviewed all of the arguments raised in the petition, and we find them to be
without merit.

State vs. Pettus
01S01-9709-CC-00202
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

Anderson vs. Moran Foods
02S01-9610-CH-00093

Jordan vs. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital
01S01-9706-CV-00142

Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

State vs. Vaughn Mixon
02S01-9804-CC-00034

Wilson vs. Wilson
01S01-9807-CV-00130

Seals vs. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg Co., Inc. and 2nd Injury Fund
03S01-9704-CH-00044

Seals vs. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg Co., Inc. and 2nd Injury Fund
03S01-9704-CH-00044

Wayne Eldred Hill v. CNA Insurance and Larry Brinton, Jr., Director of the Division of Workers Compensation, Tennessee Dept of Labor - Concurring
03S01-9608-CH-00086
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder

I concur in the majority's holding that this case falls within the purview of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a). I, however, continue to adhere to my dissent in Bomely v. Mid-America Corp., 970 S.W.2d 929 (Tenn. 1998), in which I concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a) is applicable when there is a subsequent injury and the employee is rendered permanently and totally disabled. Subsection (b), however, should apply only when the employee is still able to earn a wage or be gainfully employed but has received compensable vocational disabilities that exceed 100 percent or 400 weeks of compensation

Wayne Eldred Hill v. CNA Insurance and Larry Brinton, Jr. Director Chancellor of the Division of Worker's Compensation Fund, Tennessee Department of Labor
03S01-9608-CH-00086
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick K. McDonald

In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court determined that Wayne Eldred Hill, the employee, was permanently and totally disabled. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(a), the court apportioned 10 percent of the award to the employer and 90 percent of the award to the Second Injury Fund. The case was referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e). The Appeals Panel modified the award by apportioning 65 percent to the employer and 35 percent to the Second Injury Fund pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-208(b).

State vs. Bobby Blackmon
01S01-9709-CR-00187

State vs. Bobby Blackmon
01S01-9709-CR-00187

Wilson vs. Wilson
01S01-9807-CV-00130

Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
03S01-9712-CV-00139

Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
03S01-9712-CV-00139

Alcazar vs. Hayes
03S01-9804-CV-00035

Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
01S01-9703-CV-00048

Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
01S01-9703-CV-00048

Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01S01-9710-CV-00218

Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01S01-9710-CV-00218

Wilson vs. Wilson
01S01-9807-CV-00130

Robert L. DeLaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
01S01-9808-CH-00144
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Ames Davis, Special Supreme Court
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

In this case, we are invited to decide whether the Tennessee Plan for election of appellate judges, codified as Title 17, Chapter 4 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, but most particularly because it contemplates “retention elections” for incumbent appellate judges. In general, the Tennessee Plan provides that an incumbent appellate judge may run for reelection unopposed on the ballot, provided the incumbent’s retention has been recommended by the judicial evaluation commission; the judge will be retained in office if a majority of those voting in the election for that judge’s seat vote for such retention. Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-4- 115(d)(1)(1994). It is the duty of all courts, including the Supreme Court, to pass on a constitutional question only when it is absolutely necessary for the determination of thecase and of the rights of parties to the litigation. Glasgow v. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 666-667, 383 S.W. 2d 9, 13-14 (1964). See also, Jackson v. Davis, 530 F. Supp. 2, 4 n. 1 (E.D. Tenn.), aff’d, 667 F. 2d 1026 (6th Cir. 1981). We hold that it is not necessary to address the constitutionality of the Tennessee Plan in this case, because it is not applicable to the facts of this case. For that reason, the Court of Appeals erred in holding the Tennessee Plan constitutional, just as the trial judge erred in holding the Plan unconstitutional. We reach this conclusion because the express provisions of the Tennessee Plan render it inapplicable to the election for which defendant Brook Thompson, State Coordinator of Elections, refused to accept a qualifying petition submitted by the plaintiff, Robert L. DeLaney.

Fay Thomas Nutt v. Champion International Corporation
01S01-9705-CH-00114
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jim T. Hamilton

We granted this appeal to determine whether an employer is entitled to an offset of long-term disability payments against a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability. A 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 permits offsets against workers’ compensation benefits for payments made to an employee under an employer-funded disability plan. The plaintiff’s injury pre-dated the effective date of the statute. We hold that the amendment is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset in this case.