Crabtree vs. Crabtree
01A01-9710-CV-00576
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Bennie Day and Karen Day, v. City of Dercherd, Otis B. Smith, Jr., Mayor, Hank Weddington, Bill van Hoosier, Frank Green, and Daryl Doney, Commissioners - Concurring
01-A-01-9708-CH-00442
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Walter R. Bussart

I concur i the resulst of the majority opinion, but would base that result on different reasoning.

State vs. Jason Kimberland
02C01-9711-CC-00447

Southern Corp. vs. Mark Hiller, et al
02A01-9709-CH-00234
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Elizabeth Davis Black, v. Michael Walter Black
01A01-9801-CV-00056
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

This appeal involves post-divorce petitions for change of custody and child support. The mother, Elizabeth Davis Black (Tepas), has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court transferring custody of the eleven year old daughter, Chelsea, from the mother to the father, Michael Walter Black, and relieving him of the obligation of child support while the child was in the custody of the father by agreement of the parties.

Billy Joe Bourff v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9705-CR-00189
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Asbury

The appellant, Billy Joe Bourff, appeals as of right the Campbell County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Phyllis Ann Frazier Hamby v. Joseph Dewight Hamby and Anthony Hamby - Concurring
03A01-9708-CV-00346
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge John B. Hagler

In this divorce action, the wife appeals from the Trial Court’s Order of child support and the evaluation of the marital estate and its distribution.

State of Tennessee vs. Melvin Lewis Peacock
01C01-9704-CR-00118
Authoring Judge: Judge John M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The defendant, Melvin Lewis Peacock, appeals as of right from his jury convictions in Davidson County for possession with intent to sell three hundred grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, a Class A felony, and for the unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty years in the custody of the Department of Correction for the cocaine possession conviction and to a concurrent two-year sentence in the custody of the Department of Correction for the weapon possession conviction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the twenty-year sentence consecutively
to an earlier sentence. The defendant presents the following issues for our review:

(1) the trial court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police pursuant to a search warrant on the basis that an exact copy of the warrant was not left with the defendant;
 

(2) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the state from introducing into evidence five car titles found in a safe; and
 

(3) the trial court erred in permitting the state to recall Curtis Peacock as a witness during its case-in-chief.
 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

State of Tennessee vs. Johnny Akins
02C01-9711-CR-00451
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

Johnny Akins was found guilty by a jury of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to fifteen years in Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial. He appeals. The sole issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of
conviction.

State of Tennessee vs. Anderson D. Curry
02C01-9711-CR-00452
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The defendant was indicted in December 1996 for rape of a child. A Shelby County jury found him guilty and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence a chart depicting the victim’s injuries. The defendant also argues that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

Etta Mechelle Parks, v. Craig DeWayne Parks
03A01-9711-GS-00519
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rocky H. Young

In this divorce case, the appellant Etta Mechelle Parks argues that the trial court erred in awarding her former husband, Craig Dewayne Parks, custody of their two boys, ages seven and almost four. We do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s custody decree. See Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.; Hass v. Knighton, 676 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tenn. 1984). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in placing the children’s sole custody with Mr. Parks. See Grant v. Grant, 286 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Tenn.App. 1954).

Patrick Alan Wolfe v. Terri Lee Wolfe
03A01-9801-CV-00003
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

In this post-divorce case, the trial court denied the petition of Terri Lee Wooten, formerly Wolfe (“Mother”), seeking sole custody of the parties’ daughter, Kelsea Wolfe, age five and a half. In the same order, the court granted the counterclaim of Patrick Alan Wolfe (“Father”) by modifying Mother’s visitation rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to change the child’s custody. She also claims that the court erred in modifying the visitation schedule set forth in the divorce judgment.

Leslie A. Hassell, v. Thomas W. Hassell
02A01-9709-CH-00220
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William Michael Maloan

Following the trial of this matter, the court ordered the parties, Leslie A. Hassell (Wife) and Thomas W. Hassell (Husband), to be entitled to a divorce pursuant to T.C.A . § 36 -4 -129 ( b ) . Husband was ordered to pay Wife $500 per month as alimony in futuro and that award is the sole issue presented by Husband to this court on appeal.

Johnny T. Brown v. State of Tennessee
2A01-9701-BC-0001
Authoring Judge: Robert L. Childers, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Martha B. Brasfield
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. In this case the Commissioner of Claims found that the claimant/appellee was entitled to total disability payments from August 9, 1994 through November 9, 1994, in the amount of $3,617.57. The Commissioner also found that the claimant sustained a permanent partial impairment of 5% to the body as a whole in the amount of $55,5. Further, the Commissioner found that the State was not liable for payment of any medical expenses incurred for the services of Jackson-Madison County General associated with the claimant's August 9, 1994 surgery or for any deposition fees or medical bills of Dr. George Copple, Dr. Ray Hester or Dr. Joseph P. Rowland. Attorney's fees in the amount of $11,733.51 (2%) were awarded to the claimant. Because the evidence preponderates in favor of the decision of the Claims Commissioner, we affirm. The State admits in November 1991 that the claimant, Johnny T. Brown, then a 4-year-old male, sustained a back injury while pushing a two-hundred pound tent out of the back of a truck, a duty within the scope of his employment as a maintenance supervisor at Paris Landing State Park. Mr. Brown is a high school graduate with extensive experience in construction, maintenance and electrical work. He also has experience in tobacco farming and in computer applications. When the injury occurred, the claimant did not go directly to the emergency room, but later saw his family physician Dr. Charles Tucker. Dr. Tucker ordered a CT scan and an MRI and, in his Attending Physician's Report of November 21, 1991, diagnosed the claimant with a "lumbar strain from lifting heavy objects." Dr. Tucker then referred the claimant to Dr. Robert Merriweather, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Merriweather treated the claimant conservatively with physical therapy and anti-inflammatory and pain medications. During the course of treatment, Dr. Merriweather conducted a physical examination and reviewed the MRI ordered by Dr. Tucker. In addition, Dr. Merriweather ordered a myelogram and post-myelogram CT 2

Whitehaven Community Baptist Church, Formerly Known as Fairway Missionary Baptist Church, and T.L. James, Sr. v. Alcus Holloway and Geneva Holloway - Concurring
02S01-9709-CH-00084
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

We granted this appeal to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in this case involving claims for recision of contract and unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both issues. Upon review, we affirm the appellate court as modified.¹

Dannie Joe Christmas, v. Ralph Moore and Linda Moore
03A01-9705-CV-00188
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

This case involves the possession of real estate after foreclosure proceedings. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Appellees were entitled to possession of the real estate in question. We affirm.

Jacqueline Sue Rogers v. Samuel L. Banks and Cathy J. Stancil - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00249
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert M. Summitt

Samuel L. Banks, a doctor, and Cathy J. Stancil, a nurse, appeal a jury verdict rendered against them in favor of their former patient, Jacqueline Sue Rogers.  Ms. Rogers brought two actions of medical malpractice in the Hamilton County Circuit Court.  One action was brought against Dr. Banks, her treating  physician.  The other action was brought against Nurse Stancil.  Nurse Stancil performed the majority of the procedure in question. Judge Robert M. Summitt denied motions for directed verdict after Ms. Rogers presented her case and again after Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil presented their case.  Both actions were submitted to the jury.  The jury returned a general verdict against both Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil for $60,000.  Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil both filed motions for judgments not withstanding the verdict as well as motions for a new trial.  Judge Summitt overruled these motions and upheld the jury award.  We now reverse the judgment below and dismiss boith suits with prejudice.

Joy Walls, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Decendent Wendell M. Goodwin, v. AC & S, Inc. et al.
03A01-9707-CV-00269
Authoring Judge: Judge Dale Workman
Trial Court Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

This suit was initiated by Plaintiff-Appellant, Wendell Goodwin, against Defendants-Appellees, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, and a number of  other Defendants, seeking damages because of an illness Mr. Goodwin contracted -- specifically a stomach cancer known as peritoneal mesothelioma -- resulting from his occupational exposure to asbestos products manufactured and distributed by the Defendants, including Pittsburgh Corning and Owens-Corning. The Trial Court, in sresonse to the answers supplied by the jury through special interrogatories hereinafter set out, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants because the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable statute of repose, T.C. A . 29 -28 -103(a).

Keith Johnson, v. Fortunes Untold, Inc., D/B/A Easy Money Pawn Shop, et al.
03A01-9710-CV-00464
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Dale Young

The Trial dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for personal injury on the basis that the statute of limitations had run before the action was properly brought, pursuant to Rule 3, T.R.C.P.

State of Tennessee v. Howard E. King
02S01-9703-CR-00021
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

We granted permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 11 to Howard E. King, the appellant, in order to address the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2) (Supp. 1994),1 which requires trial courts to instruct juries regarding parole and release eligibility when a jury instruction on the sentencing range is requested by either party. Because we find that the statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or deprive the appellant of his due process right to a fair trial, we conclude that the statute, as applied under the circumstances of this case, is constitutional.

Danny K. Dockery v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9605-BP-00101
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility alleging that Danny Kaye Dockery violated an order of
suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct.
R. 9, § 18. The provisions of Rule 9 require a suspended attorney to notify clients of
an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to
adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain
from accepting new clients.

In re: John Mark Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9711-BP-00256
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed in this Court by the Board of Professional Responsibility against John Mark Hancock. The petition alleged that Hancock violated an order of suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, which requires a suspended attorney to notify clients of an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain from taking new cases.

In re: Guy S. Davis v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9801-BP-00006
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

The incidents both involved physical altercations, one of which resulted in Davis’s conviction for simple assa ult. This matter is before the Court to determine whether the respondent, Guy S. Davis, should be held in contempt for practicing law after the entry of a thirty-day temporary suspension.

Cecil Hanner v. Ruan Trans. Corp.
03S01-9709-CH-00118
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. Peoples,
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial judge found the plaintiff was 1 percent disabled and awarded judgment for 4 weeks at $355.97 per week. The trial judge fixed the time for temporary disability from November 1, 1994 through March 2, 1995, plus he awarded an additional eight weeks of temporary total disability beyond this period. The defendant says the trial court erred in awarding 1 percent temporary total disability and in fixing the time of temporary disability. The plaintiff is 47 years old with a high school education. His employment history includes working for McDonald's as a night manager after high school and working part-time for his brother as a carpenter. The plaintiff has worked most of his adult life as a truck driver. On August 22, 1993, the plaintiff was involved in a single vehicle tractor trailer truck accident in which his truck fell 23 feet down the side of Monteagle Mountain and burned. He escaped and climbed back up to the road, where he was found unconscious. The emergency room examination showed a shoulder injury, possible closed head injury, and a headache. The plaintiff was hospitalized. The plaintiff testified he had seizures at home after the accident. A co- worker, Walter H. Zorn, testified he visited the plaintiff at home and saw him have a seizure. Another co-worker, Elroy Bailey, testified he saw a marked change in the plaintiff after the injury, such as headaches, no energy, and a "spirit broken." 2

Peggy Mallicoat v. C. R. Daniels, Inc.
03S01-9708-CH-00100
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frederick D. Mcdonald,
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking reconsideration of her industrial disability under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). She had previously entered into a court-approved settlement agreement that awarded her 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because she failed to prove any increase in her disability. The plaintiff appeals and raises the following issue: "Did the trial court err in its refusal to reopen and reexamine the vocational disability of the Plaintiff/Appellant pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-421 [sic] when its refusal was based solely on the fact that there was no additional medical testimony in support of such claim of further disability." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, age 46 at the time of trial, left high school in the twelfth grade and had no vocational training. Her employment history includes working in furniture factories, working as a cook and waitress in restaurants, and working on a farm. In February 1993, the plaintiff began working for the defendant in the stenciling department. In a short time, she was transferred to working on an upright sewing machine, which required her to stand on one foot while pressing a pedal with the other foot during the length of her eight hour shift. The plaintiff testified that she injured her back while working for the defendant on September 1, 1993. She said she bent over to pick up a hamper, which weighed 15 to 2 pounds, felt and heard a "pop" in her back, and could not straighten up. 2