Less, Getz & Lipman vs. Rainbow Entertainment
02A01-9706-CV-00124
Trial Court Judge: Janice M. Holder

Elizabeth Bates vs. Robert Bates
02A01-9708-CH-00185

State vs. Willie Taylor
02C01-9702-CR-00080
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Patricia Lishman
02C01-9704-CC-00136
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Earnest Hawkins
02C01-9709-CC-00374

State vs. Freddie Russell
02C01-9710-CR-00403

State vs. Marvin Matthews
02C01-9712-CC-00465

Potter's Home Center, Inc., D/B/A Potter's Home Center, v. Lauren Dale Tucker, and Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and wife Mildred E. Viles, and the Guaranty Title Company, and First American National Bank
03A01-9710-CH-00467
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William E. Lantrip

Potter’s Home Center appeals the trial court’s summary judgment which dismissed its suit to enforce a materialman’s lien against Defendants/Appellees Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and Mildred E. Viles. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that Potter’s failed to comply with the applicable notice requirements of the mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien statutes.

Woodrow Wilson vs. State
01C01-9707-CR-00431

Offender. This Court Affirmed The Appellant'S Sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89-
01C01-9708-CR-00377

Tommy Blevins vs. State
01C01-9711-CR-00508

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey
03S01-9610-CR-00096
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard Baumgardner

We granted interlocutory review in this death penalty case to
determine whether the trial court’s orders compelling the defendant to undergo a
mental examination in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c), and requiring
disclosure to the prosecution of material related to the examination, violated the
right to counsel or the right against self-incrimination under the United States or
Tennessee Constitutions.

State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Martin
01S01-9611-CR-00225
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

A jury convicted the defendant, Henry Lee Martin, of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. We granted review to determine whether Tenn. R. Evid., Rule 613(b) mandates that a foundation be laid prior to the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We hold that extrinsic evidence remains inadmissible until: (1) the witness is asked whether the witness made the prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the witness denies or equivocates as to having made the prior inconsistent statement.

Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.
01S01-9707-CH-00160
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Richard Mcgregor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This declaratory judgment action likely created an interest that otherwise might not have existed or, perhaps, might not have manifested itself. The employer filed the action alleging that its employee reported that she experienced pain in her neck on August 17, 1995, that she was successfully treated and returned to work on September 12, 1995, that her medical expenses had been paid, and that the plaintiff [employer] should be "discharged from responsibility to defendant [employee]." A counter-claim followed in course, with the employee alleging that her neck injury resulted in temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, permanent impairment and disability, together with the incurrence of medical expenses. The trial court found the issues in favor of the employee and awarded her benefits based upon a twelve and one-half percent disability to her whole body, thus entitling her to a recovery of $2,793.5 to be paid in a lump sum. By separate order the employee was awarded $6. discretionary costs. The propriety of these awards is questioned on appeal. Our 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 finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The claimant is 37 years old, with limited marketable skills. She was initially employed in 1991 or 1992, according to her testimony. In 1992 "something happened to my neck" while loading a spool of wire. Two or three

Sidney Tillman Hoover, v. Daniel Edmondson Hoover
01A01-9706-CV-00245
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge H. Denmark Bell

This is a divorce case. Defendant-appellant Daniel Hoover appeals the trial court’s division of marital property and asserts that the land containing the parties marital home was improperly classified as wife’s separate property. Plaintiff-appellee Sidney Hoover asserts that the trial court erred in failing to award her one-half of Husband’s retirement account.

Bobby Blackmon, v. Steven F. Glaser
01A01-9606-CV-00269
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

The plaintiff, Bobby Blackmon, has appealed from a judgment reading as follows: The Motion to Set Pretrial Management Conference is overruled. This order shall be considered as a final judgment disposing of any claim, right or liability of any party as contemplated by T.R.A.P. Rule 3(a). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1996.

City of Murfreesboro v. Mariann M. Worthington, City of Murfreesboro v. Thomas W. Worthington and wife, Mariann M. Worthington
01A01-9703-CV-00124
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of Plaintiff/Appellant City of Murfreesboro, the petition is denied.

Rickye D. Anderson v. L. Lois Anderson
01A01-9704-CH-00186
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers

Appellant has filed a petition to rehear which, after due consideration is respectfully denied.

Van Adrian Barker v. Patsy Lou (Randolph) Sledd Barker - Concurring
01A01-9704-CH-00192
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Tom E. Gray

In this divorce case, the husband Van Adrian Barker has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court declaring the parties to be divorced under TCA § 36-4-129, and dividing the marital estate. The appellant presents only the following issue:

I.    Whether the Chancellor erred in finding that the husband did not substantially contribute to the appreciation of the rental property owned by the wife, thereby denying the husband a share in that appreciation.

Van Adrian Barker v. Patsy Lou (Randolph) Sledd Barker - Concurring
01A01-9704-CH-00192
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

I concur with the court’s opinion for two reasons. First, the expenses associated with the upkeep of the Gail Drive house were more than off-set by the rental income from the house. Second, the increase in the value of the house was due, not to Mr. Barker’s contributions to the maintenance of the house which were de minimis, but to the appreciation in the value of real property in general.

In the matter of: Joel Kristen Sipe, State of Tennessee, Dept. of Childrens Services v. Bruce Sipe and Laurel Sipe
01A01-9704-JV-00185
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew J. Shookhoff

This is a termination of parental rights case. The minor child in question is Joel Kristen Sipe, born September 7, 1995 to Laurel Sipe (“Mother”) and Bruce Sipe (“Father”). The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents as to this child after finding on clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to do so. Both parents have appealed. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

The Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Schilling, Inc., Jane Porter Feild, and Joel H. Porter, v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
02A01-9706-CV-00134
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge John R. McCarroll, Jr.

Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company appeals the trial court’s orders of
possession entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Town of Collierville in two eminent domain
cases. In entering its orders of possession, the trial court ruled that, as a matter of law, the
Town of Collierville had the right to condemn easements across Norfolk Southern’s railroad
track for the purpose of constructing two grade crossings and that Norfolk Southern was
not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the right-to-take issue. For the reasons hereinafter
stated, we reverse the trial court’s orders of possession and remand for further
proceedings.

State of Tennessee vs. Gary Raines, Debra Raines and Jerry Raines
01C01-9703-CC-00108
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Following the denial of their motion to suppress evidence, the Defendants, Gary Raines and Debra Raines ple d guilty in the Circuit Court of Cheatham County to possession of marijuana for resale and possession of drug paraphernalia, and Defendant Jerry Raines pled guilty to simple possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In their pleas, Defendants reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s d enial of their motion to suppress as a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules 11(e) and 37(b)(2)(I) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the certified question is: “Whether or not the initial entry upon the premises and the subsequent consent search was legal.” We affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to correct an apparent clerical error.

Patricia Diane Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
02S01-9705-CH-00048
Authoring Judge: Cornelia A.Clark, Specials Judge
Trial Court Judge: HON. GEORGE R. ELLIS

Daryl Turner vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9608-CR-00374
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane Wheatcraft

The appellant, Daryl Turner, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1993, appellant was convicted of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a Range III persistent offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Darrel Tucker1, No. 01-C-01-9310-CR00347 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 6, 1994), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995). The appellant, thereafter, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, and invalid “reasonable doubt” jury instructions.2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition upon finding no ground to warrant post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.