Robert W. Bagby, v. Dean Russell Carricco
03A01-9705-CV-00183
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor G. Richard Johnson

In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant made an intentional misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a tract of unimproved real property. Following a bench trial, the court found that the defendant, Dean Russell Carrico (“Carrico”), had fraudulently misrepresented a material fact, resulting in a judgment of $21,911.97 for the plaintiff, Dr. Robert W. Bagby (“Bagby”). The trial court also found that Carrico’s conduct violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq. (“the Act”). Carrico appealed, raising three issues that present the following questions for our review:

C. Sam Roberts v. James E. Houston
03A01-9706-CH-00199
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant and his wife, Diane, alleging that defendant “entered into agreement with plaintiff for plaintiff to grade and excavate . . . in order to make said land usable”. Plaintiff further averred that he expended over $29,000.00 for heavy equipment and operators on excavation, and “purchased and installed piping at the cost of $3,604.00, for a total due in the amount of $33,530.09".

TRW Steering Systems Company, v. John D. Snavely
03A01-9706-CH-00216
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Earl H. Henley

This is a suit for declaratory judgment. The petitioner, TRW Koyo Steering Systems Company (“TRW Koyo”), seeks a declaration that a document filed by the defendant, John D. Snavely (“Snavely”), in the Monroe County Register of Deeds’ office is a cloud on its title to real property in Monroe County. The trial court granted TRW Koyo summary judgment, decreeing that the purported lien filed by Snavely “is...of no legal effect and, thus, is lifted and removed from [TRW Koyo’s] title.” Snavely appealed pro se.

John R. Whalen v. Ruben Roberts and Jo E. Roberts - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00246
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Simmons

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on defendants’ premises, the Trial Judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R.C.P. 12.02(6), and plaintiff has appealed.

Super Grip Corporation v. B & D Super Grip, Inc., - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00257
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

In this contract action, the Trial Judge entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $50,431.29, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim which had sought damages for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the distributorship agreement.

Paul William McGaffic, v. Janice Elois McGaffic
03A01-9707-CV-00286
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William L. Brown

This is a post-divorce case. Paul William McGaffic filed a petition seeking to modify his child support and periodic alimony in futuro obligations. As pertinent to the issues on
this appeal, the trial court refused to modify its existing child support and alimony in futuro decrees. Mr. McGaffic appealed, raising issues that essentially present the following questions: 1. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its alimony in futuro award by either terminating it, or reducing it and/or converting it to an award of rehabilitative alimony? 2. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its child support award?

Gloria E. Hill-Evans v. Bredell Michael Evans, Sr.
02A01-9607-CV-00157
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

In this divorce action brought by Gloria E. Hill-Evans (Mother) against Bredell Michael Evans, Sr. (Father), the trial court awarded custody of the parties’ two minor sons to Mother with Father to have reasonable visitation. However, the trial court’s decree further provided that visitation be suspended “until both of the parties and the children have completed a counseling program which is satisfactory to the court, and the court has been furnished a report that the counseling course has been successfully completed. When the counseling process has been successfully completed, the court will consider the defendant’s visitation rights.”

Wade Spurling D.C. v. Kirby Parkway Chiropractic, et al
02A01-9609-CH-00225
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

The plaintiff, Wade Spurling, D.C., appeals from the order of the trial court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) T.R.C.P. Spurling filed a complaint titled “Complaint For Deceit in Inducement to Contract, Promissory Fraud, Fraud, Intentional Interference With Performance ofContractual Obligations and Breach of Contract.” The complaint alleges that Plaintiff owned and operated Spurling Chiropractic Clinic (SCC). He entered into negotiations with Defendant Michael K. Plambeck (Plambeck) for Plambeck to purchase SCC.

State of Tennessee vs. Anthony Noe
01C01-9407-CR-00252
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: TJudge homas H. Shriver

VANDALISM CONVICTION AFFIRMED; FALSE REPORT CONVICTION REVERSED

Theorun J. Murvin and Melody S. Murvin v. Thomas F. Cofer and Cynthia H. Cofer
03A01-9702-CH-00055
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howell N. Peoples

This dispute arose out of the sale of a residence in Signal Mountain, Tennessee. The trial court found that the sellers, Thomas F. Cofer and wife, Cynthia H. Cofer, had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“the Act”) in connection with the sale of their five-bedroom, two and a halfbath residence to the plaintiffs, Theoren J. Murvin and wife, Melody S. Murvin. The Cofers appealed, arguing that the Act does not apply to this transaction, and that the evidence does not show that the Cofers “knowingly withheld information from the [Murvins] to constitute fraud.”

State of Tennessee vs. Glenn Bernard Mann - Concurring
02-S-01-9609-CC-00077
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley

In this capital case, the defendant, Glenn Bernard Mann, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, aggravated rape and aggravated burglary.¹ In the sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;” and (2) “[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing burglary.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (7) (1991). Finding that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. 

Kenneth McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
01S01-9605-CV-00095
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing of this appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. We have considered all of the arguments raised in the petition and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.
 

Deliinger v. Arnold
03S01-9703-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Holt, Jr.,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found plaintiff, James Walter Dellinger, totally disabled and apportioned 4% of the award of disability against his employer, The Arnold Engineering Company, and 6% against the Second Injury Fund. The judgment provided the award of benefits would be payable for a period of 4 weeks. The employer has appealed seeking a ruling that (1) the evidence is not sufficient to establish the employee's back injury was work-related and (2) the apportionment of 4% of the award to the employer is not supported by the evidence. The employee contends the award should be payable until he reaches his 65th birthday rather than for just 4 weeks, which would expire while he would be 63 years of age. Employee Dellinger was injured on June 14, 1994, while removing a lid from a "ball mill". He testified he was using a large pipe wrench and it slipped and struck him; this caused him to fall into a catwalk when he struck his side. He said that after the incident, he was hurting all over his body and he sought treatment for his back and side at the hospital emergency room. Plaintiff testified he had worked for his employer for twenty years and he generally worked ten to twelve hours a day, seven days a week. He was 55 years of age at the time of his injury and he had completed the third grade. He cannot read and writes very little. His job duties appear to involve a great deal of physical activity and exertion. He told the trial court he notified his supervisor, Johnny Ogle, and Darrell Adams, the production manager, how he was injured. The emergency room physician felt he had suffered a strain and recommended he return to work despite the fact plaintiff showed the doctor a knot or bulge on his stomach. The record is quite clear that he had a number of pre-existing medical problems which would appear to affect his employability to some extent. He suffered from Paget's disease which affected the bones in his hips and knees and caused complaints of pain, etc. He had diabetes, a heart murmur and high blood pressure. He had suffered prior work-related injuries: three broken ribs, broken finger and a 2

Dennis Hodge v. M. S. Carriers, Inc.
02S01-9611-CV-00098
Authoring Judge: Don R. Ash, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: JUDGE ROBERT L. CHILDERS
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6- 225(e)(3) (1996 Supp.) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, M. S. Carriers, Inc., contends: (1) that Mr. Hodge, the Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of medical evidence that he had any permanent disability to his lower back because of the alleged work accidents; (2) that the trial court erred in applying a multiple of four times plaintiff's anatomical impairment rating, given plaintiff's age, extensive vocational history and current employment.

Fredrika A. Steiner v. The Parman Corporation - Concurring
01A01-9705-CV-00233
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell

I concur in the result reached in Judge Todd’s opinion. My only reasonfor writing separately is to focus on what I perceive to be decisive in this case: the fact that the defendant did not violate a duty to the plaintiff. In that way, I avoid the nagging problem of the court apportioning fault in a case in which the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial.

Fredrika A. Steiner v. The Parman Corporation - Concurring
01-A-01-9705-CV-00233
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

The plaintiff, Fredrika A. Steiner, has appealed from the summary dismissal of her suit against the defendant, The Parman Corporation, for damages for personal injury sustained in a fall on the premises of  defendant.

Antonio Sweatt v. Robert Conley, et al.
01A01-9706-CH-00247
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Antonio Sweatt, from an order of the Davidson County Chancery Court dismissing Appellant’s petition against respondents/appellees Robert Conley, William Calhoun, Dale Basham, Shelia Roberts, Hattie Moore, Edna Freeman, and Dr. Harold Butler. The chancery court dismissed Appellant’s petition with prejudice after determining Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows

State of Tennessee O/B/O Juanita Whitehead v. Mattie (Whitehead) Thompson
01A01-9511-CH-00538
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James L. Weatherford

This appeal involves a trial court’s authority to enter and enforce a child support award when proceedings involving the child were already pending in another court. After the Wayne County Juvenile Court gave custody of the child to the State in a dependent and neglect proceeding, the Department of Human Services filed separate petitions in the Chancery Court for Wayne County seeking to require the child’s divorced parents to pay child support. The trial court directed both parents to pay child support to the State. After the State’s repeated efforts over five years to require the mother to pay child support, she questioned the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction because the dependent and neglect proceeding was still pending in the juvenile court. The trial court denied the mother’s motion to dismiss, and on this appeal, the mother renews her claim that the trial court should have deferred to the juvenile court. We agree and, therefore, reverse the order denying the mother’s motion to dismiss.

Reiko McCullough v. Whitford B. McCullough
01A01-9701-CV-00039
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This case involves a petition for the modification of alimony payments. The ex-husband
appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to reduce his alimony obligations to his ex-wife. We
affirm.

Jerry Ray Brown, v. Phillip L. Davidson
01A01-9702-CV-00049
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This is a legal malpractice action. The trial court dismissed the action as time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, v. Lois V. Metts
01A01-9702-CV-00085
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

The plaintiffs, Ginger C. Snead and James D. Snead, sued the defendant, Lois A. Metts as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on July 22, 1994. It is undisputed that the car driven by Ms. Metts struck the car driven by Ms. Snead in the rear while the Snead vehicle was stopped at a stop sign. Ms. Snead sued for injuries and damages and Mr. Snead sued for loss of consortium.
 

Fairly Hubbard Adelsperger, v. David Robert Adelsperger
01A01-9705-CH-00206
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This appeal presents a custody and visitation dispute. The parties were declared divorced in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, and the wife received sole custody of the parties’ three minor children. Six months later, the wife moved to Mississippi, and the father petitioned for a change of custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the father custody of the children after concluding that there had been a material change of circumstances and that placing the children in the father’s custody would be in their best interests. The mother asserts on this appeal that the evidence does not support the trial court’s decision. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment.

Joni Smart Holt v. Jack Sanders Holt
01A01-9609-CH-00423
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This appeal involves the dissolution of a nineteen-year marriage. The wife filed suit for divorce in the Chancery Court for Sumner County but then suspended the proceedings while the parties attempted to reconcile. The efforts proved fruitless, and, following a bench trial, the trial court granted the wife a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The trial court also awarded the wife custody of the parties’ two children, divided the marital estate, and awarded the wife spousal support as well as additional funds for her legal expenses. The husband takes issue on this appeal with the financial aspects of the divorce decree, including the division of the marital property, the long-term spousal support award, and the additional award to defray the wife’s legal expenses at trial. While the trial court properly divided the marital property and awarded the wife funds for her legal expenses at trial, we modify the spousal support award to provide for rehabilitative alimony and for reduced longterm spousal support.

Phillip Gene McDowell vs. Roberta Grissom Boyd - Concurring
01A01-9509-CH-00413
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

This appeal involves a posthumous paternity dispute. While the decedent’s estate was pending in probate court, a person claiming to be the decedent’s son filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Van Buren County against the decedent’s estate and his widow seeking to establish the petitioner’s right to inherit part of the decedent’s estate. The trial court  heard the evidence without a jury and determined that the petitioner had presented clear and convincing evidence that he was the decedent’s  biological son. The decedent’s wife asserts on this appeal that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion. We affirm the judgment.

William W. Goad, Jr., v. Alphonse Pasipanodya, M.D., Meharry Hubbard Hospital, Frank Thomas, M.D. and Larry Woodlee
01A01-9509-CV-00426
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

This appeal involves a prisoner’s medical malpractice suit stemming from the repair of an epigastric hernia. The prisoner filed a pro se complaint against the surgeon who had performed the surgery, the hospital where the surgery was performed, and a physician and physician’s assistant employed by the prison. The Circuit Court for Davidson County first granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the physician’s assistant and later granted the summary judgment motion filed by the hospital. The prisoner appealed from the order summarily dismissing his claims against the hospital. We have determined that the prisoner’s appeal must be dismissed because he has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(f) and 4(a).