State vs. Kenneth Johnson
02C01-9612-CR-00476
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

Mildred Daniel vs. James Daniel
02A01-9606-CH-00135
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Robert Martin vs. Union Planters
02A01-9708-CV-00179
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

McGlothlin vs. Bristol
03A01-9706-CV-00236

State vs. Larry Holbrooks
01C01-9701-CR-00011

State vs. Timothy Brown
01C01-9701-CR-00032
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Christopher Parker
01C01-9701-CR-00037

State vs. James Jones
01C01-9612-CC-00522
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

State vs. Gaylen Rhodes
02C01-9703-CC-00121
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Darwin Windham
02C01-9705-CC-00196

State vs. Mark Rawlings
02C01-9612-CR-00475
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Mccartie

Knoll vs. Knoll
03A01-9707-CH-00275

Stephens vs. Revco
03A01-9708-CV-00351

Worley vs. State
03A01-9708-JV-00366

State vs. Harry Reed
01C01-9701-CC-00007

State vs. Judy Leath
01C01-9511-CC-00393

Larry Stephen Roseberry, v. Janis Roseberry
03A01-9706-CH-00237
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

In this divorce action, the appellant (husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court questioning the amount of child support he was ordered to pay, the division of marital property and alimony, including the amount, nature, and duration. The appellee (wife) seeks attorney fees for this appeal. No issue is presented relating to the granting of the divorce. We note that at the time of the trial, the husbanc had more than enough life insurance in force to satisfy this requirement.

Cheri Owens Tuncay v. Engin Halif Tuncay - Concurring
02A01-9709-CH-00209
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This is a divorce case. Plaintiff-appellant Cheri Owens Tuncay was granted a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Mrs. Tuncay appeals the trial court’s division of the marital debts as well as the court’s failure to award her alimony beyond $5,000 in attorney fees.

Donald Neil Pierce, v. Branda Ann Radford Pierce
03A01-9707-GS-00250
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Austin

This is a divorce case.  On appeal, Brenda Pierce (wife) raises the issues of whether the tril court erred by refusing to grant her periodic alimony, by failing to grant her the divorce, and by failing to grant her discretionary costs and attorney's fees. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell

The State of Tennessee filed a petition to rehear in the above styled case on November 24, 1997. The State contends this court should rehear the case pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, it contends our decision 1) conflicts with existing case law, 2) conflicts with a principle of law, and 3) overlooks a material fact upon which the parties were not heard. It is the opinion of this court that the motion is not well taken and, therefore, should be denied.

Roger Perry and Doris Perry, v. Donald Van Hise and Josephine Van Hise, Individually and D/B/A Van Hise Construction Company
01A01-9705-CH-00227
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

This appeal involves the construction of a home. Plaintiffs engaged one of the defendants, Donald Van Hise, (hereafter, the defendant) to construct a home on their property. On May 24, 1994, defendant signed a proposal to construct the house, reserving the right to withdraw the proposal within 30 days, if not accepted by plaintiff. One of the plaintiffs signed an acceptance of the proposal. The other did not. On June 25, 1994, defendant tendered another proposal on different terms, which proposal was accepted by both plaintiffs. The second proposal contained an estimated time of completion of 3-1/2 - 4-1/2 months. Both proposals contained a base contract price subject to revision for changes during construction. Both contracts refer to “plans and specifications” but the record contains no plan and only a partial set of specifications. The plans and specifications were not specifically prepared for plaintiffs, but were “generic,” that is, sold on the general market, to be altered as desired; and alterations were made, producing part of the present controversy. Promptly after the second proposal was accepted.

Joey Brown, as next friend and natural guardian of Mitchell W. Brown, v. Walmart Discount Cities
01A01-9705-CV-00217
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H., Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

In this slip and fall case in which a child slipped on some ice cubes in the vestibule of a large department store, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but attributed 70 % of the fault to the unknown person who placed or dropped the ice on the floor. Ruling on a post-trial motion, the trial judge held that the store’s fault was 100% because the plaintiff could not sue the unknown tortfeasor. On appeal, the defendant asserts that there is no evidence to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred in modifying the jury’s verdict with respect to the degree of fault. We find that there is evidence from which the jury could have found that the store was negligent and that the store cannot attribute part of the fault to the unknown tortfeasor. We, therefore, affirm the lower court’s judgment.

JoAnne Pollock v. Donnie F. Pollock
01A01-9706-CH-00271
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The defendant, Donnie F. Pollock, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court awarding the plaintiff a divorce on grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct, awarding plaintiff, $8,000.00 alimony in solido and $500.00 per month alimony until she reaches 65 years or one of the parties dies; ordering defendant to pay $2,400.00 of plaintiff’s attorneys fees, and distributing the marital estate and liability for debts.

William Jeffrey Tarkington, v. Rebecca Juanita Tarkington
01A01-9706-CV-00270
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

The husband, William Jeffrey Tarkington, has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court finding him and his wife, Rebecca Juanita Tarkington, guilty of inappropriate marital conduct and declaring them to be divorced pursuant to TCA § 36-4-129.

Wilma Jean Lampley, v. Gordon Ray Lampley
01A01-9708-CH-00423
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge H. Denmark Bell

This is a post-divorce decree proceeding in which the defendant husband has appealed from an unsatisfactory disposition of his counter petition to terminate alimony.