SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Demetra Lyree Parker v. Warren County Utility District
01S01-9806-CH-00107
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge John W. Rollins

We granted review to address the standard for an employer's liability in supervisor sexual harassment cases under the Tennessee Human Rights Act following the recent United States Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998). Upon review, we adopt a standard consistent with Ellerth and Faragher and hold that an employer is vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor. An employer, however, may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages when no tangible employment action has been taken. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified.

State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey D. Hunter
01S01-9806-CC-00118
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark

We granted this appeal by Jeffrey D. Hunter, the appellant, in order to address issues pertinent to a trial court’s authority during probation revocation proceedings. For the reasons provided herein, we hold that when a trial court has determined that a probation violation has occurred, it possesses the authority to: (1) order incarceration; (2) order the original probationary period to commence anew; or (3) extend the remaining period of probation for as much as an additional two years. We further conclude that a defendant is not entitled to credit on his or her sentence of incarceration for any time served on probation prior to probation revocation and reinstatement of the original sentence. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Pat Bondurant
01S01-9804-CC-00064
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

In this appeal, the defendant, Pat Bondurant, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and arson. Upon finding that the State had proven two statutory. The jury found the following two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, which involve the use or threat of violence to the person;” and (2) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved to rture or de pravity of m ind.” Ten n. Code Ann. § 39 -2-203( i)(2) and (5 ) (1982). These statutory aggravating circumstances were redefined in 1989 and are currently codified at Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-13-204(i)(2) and (5) (1998 Sup p.). 2Tenn. Code A nn. § 39-13-206(a)(1) (1997 R epl.).
aggravating circumstances1 beyond a reasonable doubt and that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution on the conviction for first degree murder. On the arson conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years consecutive to the death penalty. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Thereafter, the case was docketed in this Court2 and set for oral argument with respect to eight of the issues raised by the defendant. See Tenn. S. Ct. R. 12.

Virginia Graf Waddey v. Ira Clinton Waddey, Jr.
01S01-9811-CV-00198
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Corlew, III

We granted this appeal to determine whether a party receiving periodic alimony may obtain a modification or extension of alimony when: 1) a termination date was agreed to by the parties in their property settlement agreement; and 2) the petition to modify was filed after the termination date but prior to the expiration of thirty days. We hold that the alimony was not modifiable after one of the contingencies listed in the property settlement agreement occurred. We affirm the Court of Appeals, but we base our decision upon other grounds

Hawkins vs. Hart
01S01-9811-CV-00199

Hathaway vs. First Family Financial Svcs.
01S01-9811-FD-00203
Trial Court Judge: John T. Nixon

Concrete Spaces vs. Sender
01S01-9812-CH-00224
Trial Court Judge: Cecil Crowson

Schering Plough Healthcare vs. State Bd. of Equalization
02S01-9810-CH-00096

Cleek vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
W1999-02419-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Ramsey vs. Town of Oliver Springs
03S01-9807-CH-00073

McIlvain vs. Russell Stover Candies
01S01-9709-CH-00208

Sullivan vs. Baptist Memorial Hospital
02S01-9804-CV-00032

Long vs. Tri-Con Industries
01S01-9708-CV-00176

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 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.

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.

Hawkins vs. Hart
01S01-9811-CV-00199
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Marcus vs. Marcus
02S01-9804-CH-00036

Guliano vs. Cleo
02S01-9801-CV-00002

State vs. Buggs
02S01-9803-CR-00020
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

State vs. Brown
02S01-9710-CR-00085

Morris vs. State
01S01-9804-BC-00076