Michelle Ball for herself and next of kind of Miranda K. Ball, Deceased, v. Hamilton County Emergency Medical Services
03A01-9804-CV-00139
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

This civil action was filed by Michelle Ball ("Ms Ball") against Hamilton County Emergency Medical Services ("HCEMS") and others, seeking damages for the wrongful death of Ms. Ball's 16-month-old daughter, Miranda K. Ball ("Miranda"). The suit against HCEMS brought into play the provision of the Govermental Tort Liability Act. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed the complaint as to HCEMS, finding that HCEMS did not have a duty to transport Miranda to the hospital in the face of her mother's decision at the child's condition was not such as to require a trip to the hospital. The court further fond that HCEMS' emergency medical technicians ("the EMTS") did not violate their standard of care by failing to advise Ms. Ball that croup could be life-threatening under certain circumstances. Ms. Ball appealed, raising issues that present the following questions for our determination:

Howell vs. Chase
03A01-9810-CV-00340

Robert D. Fulcher, III and wife, Eleanor Fulcher and Allen-Fulcher Partnership, v. R. Chancellor Allen and H. Stanley Allen, Trustee, and Harwell-Allen Partnership
01A01-9802-CH-00090
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Gilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a dispute between partners. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert D. Fulcher III, Eleanor Fulcher, and Allen-Fulcher Partnership, appeal the trial court’s ruling in favor of Appellees, R. Chancellor Allen, H. Stanley Allen, and Harwell-Allen Partnership.

Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker - Concurring
01S01-9704-CH-00085
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace

Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the grant of custody to the father, I write separately to condemn the appearance of impropriety this case exudes. As the United
States Supreme Court stated in Offutt v. U.S., 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13, 99 L. Ed. 11, 16 (1954), “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” The trial court’s actions in this case do not satisfy that appearance.

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Dissenting
02S01-9709-CC-00079
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder

I disagree with the majority's holding in this case that the district attorney
general abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. The defendant has
committed an extremely serious offense in this case. She has admitted to
embezzling approximately $27,400.00 from her employer. Her crime was not an
isolated incident but a complicated, calculated, and deliberate criminal scheme
that occurred repeatedly over a course of two years until she was ultimately
caught.

State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson
03C01-9712-CC-00549
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

On October 15, 1997, the defendant was convicted of delivering cocaine and he was sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary.  The defendant was tried along with a co-defendant Reggie Barton. In the course of the trial, statements made by Barton implicated the defendant.  The defendant raises the following issues:  1. Whether the defendant’s Motion To Sever the trial should have been granted?  2. Whether the co-defendant’s statement to the confidential informant should have been excluded or redacted?  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Gouge vs. Ryan
03A01-9805-CV-00174

Underwood vs. Charter Federal
03A01-9809-CV-00288

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry
02S01-9709-CC-00079
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly ruled that the prosecution abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in denying the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s written letter denying diversion did not discuss all of the relevant factors, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the prosecutor to testify as to the factors that were considered in denying pretrial diversion.

Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker
01S01-9704-CH-00085
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace

We granted the appeal in this child custody case to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the effects of an interracial relationship on the child and in later excluding the trial court’s comments from the statement of evidence.

Adkins v. Beech Grove Processing
03S01-9804-CH-00042
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Billy Joe White,
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.

Underwood v. Robinson Mfg.
03S01-9802-CH-00019
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey F. Stewart,
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.

Kenneth Larry Mangum, v. Golden Gallon Corporation
01A01-9709-CV-00459
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

This premises liability action involves a disabled person who was injured when he tripped on a floor mat while entering a convenience market in Decherd. The patron’s suit against the market, originally filed in the Chancery Court for Franklin County but later transferred to the Circuit Court for Franklin County, alleged that the market had created a dangerous condition, especially for patrons using crutches, by placing the floor mat at its entrance. The market moved for summary judgment, relying on the deposition testimony of the patron, two employees of the market, and the market's surveillance camera videotape of the patron’s fall. The trial court granted the motion, and the patron has appealed. We have determined that the market is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, accordingly, affirm the summary judgment.
 

Kimberly Siegel vs. David Siegel
02A01-9708-CH-00198
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

02A01-9712-CV-
02A01-9712-CV-
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

02A01-9804-CH-
02A01-9804-CH-
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

02A01-9805-CV-
02A01-9805-CV-
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

Lisa Austin vs. Gregory Graflund
02A01-9807-JV-00176
Trial Court Judge: A. V. Mcdowell

Burson & Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the Metropolitan Planning Commission
01A01-9805-CH-00249
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Claudia C. Bonnyman

Burson and Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. ("Burson & Simpson") appeals from the trial court’s affirmance of a decision rendered by the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), whereby the Planning Commission characterized a proposed amendment to a planned unit development as a “basic change in development concept,” and whereby the Planning Commission disapproved the amendment. We find that, based upon the record before this Court, the Planning Commission’s disapproval of the proposed amendment was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious and, therefore, we reverse the holding of the trial court.

William D. Pewitt v. State of Tennessee
01C01-9804-CC-00195
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

The petitioner, William D. Pewitt, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from his 1994 convictions for witness coercion, a Class D felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. William D. Pewitt, No. 01C01-9411-CC-00375, Williamson County (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 1996), app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 1, 1997). The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, allowing amendment of the petition with the aid of counsel, or holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim.

Jorge Ariel Sanjines v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9706-CR-00229
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven Bevil

After a careful review of the remaining issues, we find that the appellant was improperly convicted of multiple inchoate offenses, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, for the criminal conduct against his ex-wife, Gina Sanjines. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-106(a) (Supp. 1994). Neither the defense nor the State considered section 39-12-106(a) when they constructed the plea agreement in this case. We conclude that the error was prejudicial and, accordingly, reverse the conviction of attempted murder.2 The remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed.

Browning Construction Company v. Lawrence E. Steinburg and John W. Browning, Sr., - Concurring
02A01-9711-CH-00290
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John Hill Chisolm

This is a suit to enforce a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien. The plaintiff asserted it made improvements to real property based on an agreement with the owner of the property. The property owner moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties. The trial court granted summary  judgment to the defendant property owner, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Steve Anderson v. Hacks Crossing Partners, et al.
02A01-9711-CH-00288
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

Plaintiff Steve Anderson appeals the trial court’s order which dismissed his complaint seeking specific performance and other relief against Defendants/Appellees Hacks Crossing Partners and Exxon Corporation. We affirm.
 

Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9804-BC-00076
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker

This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed.

Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters
03S01-9809-CV-00101
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).