Jerry Nelms as next of kin and Executor of the Estate of Inez Nelms v. Walgreen Company
02A01-9805-CV-00137
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge John R. McCarroll, Jr.

Plaintiff Jerry Nelms, as next of kin and executor of the estate of his deceased wife,
Inez Nelms, appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding him the sum of $25,000 in compensatory damages but denying his request for punitive damages. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the court properly directed a verdict in favor of Defendant/Appellee Walgreen Company on the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks - Dissenting
01S01-9803-CR-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Because the opinion filed by the Court of Criminal Appeals states the view I take, I respectfully dissent from the view held by the majority of my colleagues and would adopt the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wayne Edison
03S01-9803-CC-00022
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

We granted this Tenn. R. App. P. 11 appeal to determine the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s decision to admit a breath-alcohol test result under State v. Sensing, 843
S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the test result of the defendant, Jerry Wayne Edison.1 We affirm the judgment of the intermediate appellate court and conclude that a trial court’s Sensing decision must be presumed correct on appeal unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary.

State of Tennessee vs. Michael D. Hawkins
03C01-9808-CC-00309
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The appellant, Michael D. Hawkins, appeals as of right from the trial court’s revocation of his suspended sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the appellant had violated conditions of his probation and ordered execution of the entire sentence as originally entered. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted intensive probation or an alternative sentence, specifically Community Corrections.

State of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Middlebrooks
01S01-9802-CR-00017
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ann Lacy Johns

This case is before us for automatic review of the Court of Criminal Appeals’
affirmance of a death sentence imposed upon Donald Ray Middlebrooks in a
Davidson County resentencing hearing for first degree murder.

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks
01S01-9803-CC-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

We granted this appeal by the State of Tennessee to address the issue of jury unanimity in cases where the State relies on alternative theories of guilt to convict an accused under a single count indictment. In this case, the appellee, James Lemacks, was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the appellee of DUI based upon evidence that he operated his automobile while intoxicated or that he was criminally responsible for allowing his friend, Clinton Sanchez, to drive the automobile while intoxicated. The jury returned a general verdict convicting the appellee of DUI.

Carl Hanks v. State of Tennessee
02A01-9810-BC-00295
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner Martha Brasfield

This appeal is brought from the Claims Commission’s order dismissing the 2 appellant’s petition. Petitioner, a Tennessee Department of Correction inmate, was attacked by another inmate and sustained injuries as a result. Petitioner alleged in his complaint that the State of Tennessee was negligent in not providing adequate security. For the following reasons we affirm the Claims Commission’s order granting the State’s motion for summary judgment

Carolyn Whitemore v. Diane Jones
02A01-9901-CV-00002
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

Defendant Diane Jones (“Jones” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding Plaintiff Carolyn Whitemore (“Whitemore” or “Appellee”) the sum of $1,250.00 as reimbursement for money given to Jones by Whitemore for investment in an illegal “pyramid scheme.”

Jennitia Jane Blanton Isbell v. Larry Euniel Isbell
02A01-9708-CH-00188
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

This is a divorce case. In dividing marital property, the trial court awarded the wife 50.5% of the marital property and awarded the husband 49.5%. The trial court did not award the wife alimony or attorney’s fees. The wife now appeals the division of marital property, and the failure to award alimony and attorneys’ fees. We affirm.

Linda McDade and Gary Grooms, v. R. Henry Ivey
02A01-9805-CV-00124
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Moore

This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiffs and the defendant orally agreed to each submit applications to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to obtain a license to construct and maintain cellular phone operations. The parties agreed to share the profits if any one of them was awarded a license. The defendant was awarded a license, and the plaintiffs sued to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant finding the contract was illegal under FCC rules and therefore unenforceable. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Cheryl Lynn (Douglas) Humphrey v. David Arnold Humphrey
01A01-9802-CV-00109
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell

Appellant David A. Humphrey commenced this pro se appeal to challenge the trial court's Final Decree granting a divorce to Appellee Cheryl Lynn (Douglas) Humphrey on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. He asserts that the divorce should have been granted to him or the court should have simply declared the parties divorced. He also challenges the trial court’s child custody and visitation order, asking that in person visitation be required. Finally, he objects to the assessment of costs against him.

Carl Milliken v. Steven Feldt, Lori Feldt, and Robert Gaskin, Individually
01A01-9806-CV-00271
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

This case involves an appeal from the SumnerCounty Circuit Court’s de novo review of a case from General Sessions Court, in which only one of the General Sessions Defendants perfected an appeal to circuit court.

State of Tennessee v. Richard Allen
01C01-9712-CR-00593
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Defendant, Richard Allen, was indicted for the first degree murders of David Lee Day and James Kevin Huckaby. A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of the lesser offense of second degree murder of David Lee Day and acquitted him of the Huckaby homicide. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because of insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. The state prosecuted this accomplice for first degree murder, sought the death penalty, and allowed him to plead guilty to second degree murder during the accomplice's trial. The state has now changed its position and argues that he was not an accomplice. This is, however, impermissible. Since this felon-accomplice provided the only testimony linking the defendant to the crime, the long-standing, firmly established law in this state requires us to REVERSE the conviction.

HBO Direct, Inc., v. Ruth E. Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue, State of Tennessee
01A01-9804-CH-00221
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This case involves a contest of Tennessee sales and use tax assessed by the defendant Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue. The plaintiff satellite programming television company argues that its services are not taxable telecommunications because, as “broadcast[s] . . . for public consumption,” the satellite television services are excluded from the definition of taxable telecommunications. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff satellite programming television company. The defendant Commissioner appeals. We affirm.

State vs. Lonnie Ray Thompson
03C01-9809-CC-00319
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler

Willie Vann vs. Calvin Howell
02A01-9809-CV-00246
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

State vs. Roy Sherrod
02C01-9806-CR-00164
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Calvin Havner
01C01-9806-CC-00275
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

State vs. Daniel M. Tidwell
01C01-9807-CC-00288
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Allen R. Jordan
01C01-9807-CC-00315
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

Claude Garrett vs. State
01C01-9807-CR-00294

Nathan v. Harris,
03S01-9805-CH-00047
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Richard Ladd,
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 appellant insists "the trial court abused his discretion when it allowed the plaintiff to re-open his proof after final judgment was entered against plaintiff." The appellee insists the "defendant has waived the issue it now presents for appellate review, due to the fact that defendant failed to make the appropriate objection at the trial court level." As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. On April 19, 1993, the employee or claimant, Kilgore, suffered a work related accidental injury at work. He filed a complaint averring he suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome because of the accident, seven requests for production of documents and twenty-four interrogatories in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County on November 23, 1993. On February 8, 1994, the employer filed its answer admitting the work related accident, but denying that the claimant's medical condition was causally connected to the accident. On November 21, 1995, over two and one-half years after the accident, the claimant filed an amended complaint, averring the same thing, but also claiming an injury in September of 1992. On August 16,1996, an order of readiness was entered setting the case for trial on October 16, 1996. Two days before scheduled trial date, the defendant answered the amended complaint by asserting that the claim was time barred to the extent that the plaintiff was seeking benefits for the September, 1992 injury. The case was actually tried on November 16, 1996. The chancellor found that the 1992 claim was time barred, that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he suffered a compensable work related permanent injury in the 1993 accident, but that he was temporarily and totally disabled from May 19, 1993 to September 7, 1993 and that he would retain a permanent partial disability of fifteen percent to the body as a whole. The last two findings were contingent 2

Lemay vs. State
01A01-9807-CH-00397
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Simpson vs. Bicentennial Volunteers
01A01-9809-CV-00493
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

State vs. Lester Bell
03C01-9712-CR-00541
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner