SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

State vs. Cattone
03S01-9706-CR-00075
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn

Earhart vs. City of Bristol
03S01-9709-CH-00116

Earhart vs. City of Bristol
03S01-9709-CH-00116

Howard Woods vs. MTC Mgt. & Solomon Mgt.
02S01-9706-CH-00061

Cole vs. Campbell, Comm., et. al.
01S01-9705-CH-00104

State vs. Perry A. Cribbs
02S01-9703-CR-00014

State vs. Perry A. Cribbs
02S01-9703-CR-00014

State vs. Perry A. Cribbs
02S01-9703-CR-00014
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Perry A. Cribbs
02S01-9703-CR-00014
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

01S01-9702-CH-00026
01S01-9702-CH-00026
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith

Juanita Mitchell, Personal Representative of the Estate of Billy Mitchell v. Sam Cole, Jr., Substitute Trustee, Estate of Prudence Reynolds and Gerald W. Pickens, Administrator
02S01-9703-CH-00020
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Russell Fowler

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that a debtor cannot collateraliy attack in state court an adjudication made in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding regarding the balance due on a deb owed by the debtor-bankrupt. The judgment of the Court of appeals is affirmed as modified.

Rebecca Fay Woods, Harry B. Woods, Jr. and Shirley Ann Woods, et. al. v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co., Inc., Harpeth Construction Co. and Travelers Insurance Co.
01S01-9606-CH-00124
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Gilcrease

We granted this workers' compensation appeal to address two issues: (1) whether the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment; and (2) whether the decedent was the initial aggressor; and if so, whether the aggressor doctrine precluded recovery. We find that the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment. As to the second issue, we hold the common law aggressor defense as it relates to workers' compensation claims under the Act is abolished in Tennessee and does not bar the decedent's recovery

Robert Jones v. Vick Idles
E2001-02833-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
We granted this appeal to determine whether the chancellor correctly granted a new trial after finding that the jury's allocation of ninety percent of the fault to the plaintiffs and ten percent of the fault to the defendant was against the weight of the evidence and that the evidence supported "a defense verdict for both sides." A majority of the Court of Appeals concluded that the chancellor correctly granted a new trial on both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's counterclaim and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we agree with the Court of Appeals and hold that the chancellor properly granted a new trial after finding that the jury's allocation of fault was against the weight of the evidence in his role as the thirteenth juror. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

03S01-9704-PB-00042
03S01-9704-PB-00042

Hazel Coln and Carl Coln vs. City of Savannah, TN
02S01-9702-CV-00008
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

Evans vs. Steelman
01S01-9701-JV-00019
Trial Court Judge: Shookhoff

TN. Consumer Advocate vs. TN. Regulatory Authority
01S01-9706-BC-00141

Coleman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Huddleston
01S01-9706-CH-00143

Shoffner vs. Tuttle
03S01-9610-CH-00105
Trial Court Judge: Billy Ray White

State vs. Ronnie Michael Cauthern
02S01-9612-CC-00108

State vs. Ronnie Michael Cauthern
02S01-9612-CC-00108
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

03S01-9704-CV-00037
03S01-9704-CV-00037

In re: Francis E. Dichtel
01S01-9506-BP-00101

Swafford, M.D., vs. Harris, et. al.
01S01-9612-FD-00248

Northland Ins. Co. vs. State
M1998-00307-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
The issue in this case is whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against the State of Tennessee for contribution and indemnity. The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway. The statute, however, does not mention contribution and indemnity suits as part of the Commission's jurisdiction. Because of the principle that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unmistakable, we conclude that the State has not consented to hear contribution and indemnity claims. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the appellant's claim.