Holt vs. Lewis
01A01-9707-PB-00314
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

Moser vs. Dept. of Transp., et. al .
01A01-9707-CH-00317
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Provencher vs. State
03C01-9704-CR-00147
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

03C01-9709-CR-00342
03C01-9709-CR-00342
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

William Kirk Riley, Pro Se vs. State
M2002-02302-CCA-OT-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The Petitioner, William Kirk Riley, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Charles Allen
M2002-03144-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The Defendant, Charles Ray Allen, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief, and the Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. James Pinkerton
01C01-9706-CC-00220

Robert Moore vs.State
01C01-9712-CC-00580

State vs.Collins
03C01-9704-CR-00127
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State vs. Friedman
03C01-9704-CR-00140
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

State vs. Johnny Clark
02C01-9708-CR-00307
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

Quarles vs. Shoemaker
03A01-9708-CH-00370

Friar vs. Kroger
03A01-9710-CV-00470

William R. Cross v. Mahle, Inc.
03S01-9704-CV-00038
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that his heart attack was not a compensable injury by accident under the workers' compensation laws of Tennessee. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Cross, was injured in an automobile accident in 1994 and left with a partial disability. In order to accommodate that disability, the employer placed him in a light duty position as a security guard, where he worked in an air conditioned guard shack. He would leave the shack from time to time to check the identity of a vehicle driver, a distance of twenty to twenty-five feet from the shack. In July of 1995, he was prescribed nitroglycerin for chest pain. On the evening of August 17, 1995, he experienced slight chest pain at home. The next day, a very hot one, he felt chest pain at work. The pain gradually increased in severity and did not subside for several hours, although he did not engage in any unusual physical exertion or stress. He left work and went home, then to the hospital, accompanied by his wife. Dr. Kenneth Allum treated the claimant. He testified that the claimant had suffered a minor heart attack and that going in and out of the guard shack in hot weather could have been the cause. Dr. Alfred Beasley disagreed on both counts, from medical records. Both doctors are board certified in internal medicine. Dr. Beasley is also a cardiologist. The medical records reflect the claimant as having poorly controlled diabetes, as being overweight and a heavy smoker and having a family history of coronary artery disease. The trial judge prepared and filed an exhaustive opinion in which he found that the claimant had failed to carry the burden of proof as to causation, and dismissed the claim. Appellate review is de novo upon the record 2

Howard F. Stanley v. South Central Bell
03S01-9705-CH-00048
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. H. David Cate,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff filed a "Petition to Reopen" a workers' compensation case wherein the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 26, 199. In the initial case, the Chancellor awarded the plaintiff benefits for a knee injury, a psychological disability, and vision loss. This Petition was filed November 27, 1995. The plaintiff alleged that he continues to suffer from "depression and other psychological problems," for which he seeks additional benefits. He amended the petition to allege that a management plan instituted in the "mid-197's" caused "stress and depression," which have gradually worsened. The defendant answered generally, and specifically pleaded the bar of the Statute of Limitations presented by T.C.A. _ 5-6-23 and T.C.A. _ 5-6- 224. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits had been fully and finally adjudicated; that the plaintiff retired from Bell South on August 25, 1985, and thus was no longer an employee as defined by T.C.A. _ 5-6-12(3); and that the benefits owing to the plaintiff as a consequence of his initial action were paid in a lump sum which, by statute, forecloses the issue pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-231. The motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff appeals. The issue is whether the case should have been resolved summarily. We need not belabor the point. The plaintiff seeks benefits for some kind of incident that occurred five (5) years before the knee injury (then alleged 2

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. Scotty White
02C01-9709-CC-00372
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

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

Carol Douglas v. Graves Gold Leaf Gallery of West Tennessee, Inc., et al
02S01-9801-CH-00011
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris,

Terrance B. Smith v. State of Tennessee
W2004-02366-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Steven Cobb v. Joseph Vinson, et al.
02A01-9707-CV-00144
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Lee Moore Jr.

Stephen Cobb (“petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Lake County against Joseph Vinson, Chairman of the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility disciplinary board (“LCRCF”); Billy Compton, warden of LCRCF; and Donal Campbell (“commissioner”), commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (collectively “respondents”) seeking court review of actions taken by the prison disciplinary board, prison warden, and department commissioner. Due process violations resulting therefrom were also alleged. The trial court granted respondents’ motion for dismissal for improper venue and petitioner has appealed. On appeal, a single issue was presented for our review: whether the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. For reasons state hereinafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.