01C01-9509-CR-00314
01C01-9509-CR-00314
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

01C01-9509-CR-00315
01C01-9509-CR-00315

Cyril v. Fraser
01C01-9511-CR-00360
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

01C01-9511-CR-00363
01C01-9511-CR-00363

01C01-9402-CR-00056
01C01-9402-CR-00056
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

01C01-9411-CC-00375
01C01-9411-CC-00375
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

Autto Lee Taylor, Sr. v. Bailey-Parks Urethane, Inc.,
02S01-9602-CV-00018
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Billy Joe White
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert A. Lanier,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal the employer contends no notice was given and causation was not proven. The trial judge found proper notice and a work-related injury. This panel affirms the judgment of the trial judge. The Plaintiff testified, "A. I told him about it. He just sat there and looked at me. He didn't say nothing. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him I hurt my back Friday. I needed to go to the doctor. Q. Did Mr. Tutor ask you any questions at that time? A. He asked me where I hurt my back. I said here at the job." (App. P. 28). Mr. Tutor testified, ". . .He had come to evidently Larry, which is his supervisor. We happened to be standing talking and he come up to us, I guess he was giving notification that he had hurt his back, that he had -- that he needed to go home or get this taken care of, but he had not said anything to Larry individually. He come up to both of us at the same time, which is the right thing for him to do. He needs to report it." (App. P. 7). The scope of review is de novo on the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the judgment of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This panel finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes notice within T.C.A. _ 5-6-21 and affirms the trial court. As to the issue of causation the treating doctor, Dr. Leventhal, testified to a history given him by the employee of a work related injury. (Leventhal Depo. P.11).

01A01-9603-CV-00141
01A01-9603-CV-00141
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton

01A01-9507-CH-00318
01A01-9507-CH-00318
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

01A01-9510-CH-00491
01A01-9510-CH-00491
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell

01A01-9510-CH-00491
01A01-9510-CH-00491

Betty Berryhill vs. Charles Rhodes
W2001-00748-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
This is a child support case with significant appellate history. Pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court's opinion in Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188, 188-89 (Tenn. 2000), this case was before the trial court in order to determine Dr. Rhode's retroactive child support obligations. The court applied the Child Support Guidelines from 1989 until the date the child reached majority, in September 1995. The court deviated from the guidelines in assessing Dr. Rhodes's child support obligation from 1977 to 1989. The court calculated the total arrearage as $180,202.00. In assessing interest on the judgment, the court determined that interest should accrue from August 21, 1996, the date of the trial court's original judgment in this matter. Both parties take issue with the trial court's decision. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03C01-9601-CR-00047
03C01-9601-CR-00047
Trial Court Judge: Russell C. Hinson

03C01-9512-CC-00380
03C01-9512-CC-00380

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

03A01-9511-CV-00420
03A01-9511-CV-00420