SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Arnold Carter v. State of Tennessee
03-S-01-9612-CR-00117
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpha A Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bibb

We granted the State's application in this case to determine whether the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 (“the new Act”), provides to petitioners for whom the statute of limitations had expired under the old Act additional time in which to file petitions for post-conviction relief. We conclude that although the language of the new Act is ambiguous, the legislative intent is clear: petitioners for whom the statute of limitations expired prior to the effective date of the new Act, i.e., May 10, 1995, do not have an additional year in which to file petitions for post-conviction relief. Thus, the petition filed by Arnold Carter is barred by the statute of limitations. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the petition is dismissed.

State of Tennessee v. Jefferson C. Pennington
01S01-9607-PB-00133
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James R. Everett

We review this cause to determine whether detention immediately after arrest, purposely continued because of the accused’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, constitutes punishment that prevents, under double jeopardy principles, punishment upon conviction. Because we find that jeopardy did not attach to the proceedings before the judicial commissioner and because the detention, even if punitive, did not constitute punishment for the charged offenses, we find no double jeopardy violation. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, the indictments are reinstated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Vernon Ray Davis v. Jim Reagan and Howard Sexton, D/B/A Precision Construction Traveler's Insurance Co.
03S01-9603-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Holt, Jr.

We granted this consolidated appeal to determine whether permanent total disability can be awarded when an anatomical disability rating is less than 16.7 percent. In Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc., 906 S.W.2d 444 (Tenn. 1995), this Court adopted a panel decision holding that the limits in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (1996 Supp.) precluded an award of total disability when the anatomical impairment was less than 16.7 percent. A later, but unpublished, workers' compensation panel decision held that the limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) are not applicable to permanent total disability claims. Warren v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 03S01-9506-CV-00061 (Nov. 29, 1995, at Knoxville). We granted review to reconcile these two cases and decide this issue. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the panel's findings in Warren and hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241's limitations on permanent partial disability do not apply to awards of permanent total disability.

Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate if Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased
01S01-9609-CH-00177
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

This will contest case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in sustaining the most recently executed instrument as the testatrix's last will and testament. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

In re: Estate of Carleton Elliott Walton, Deceased, Jeffrey O. Walton, Administrator v. Leslie Young
01S01-9612-PB-00252
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

This case presents for review with the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's denial of a claim of paternity. For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. 

James R. Fruge and Jane Fruge v. John and Jane Doe
02S01-9601-CV-00005
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment denying the plaintiff's claims under the uninsured motorist statute. That decision is reversed, and the case is remanded. 

Mary Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc. and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Division of Worker's Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor
03S01-9512-CH-00137
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Dennis H. Inman

This is an appeal from the decision of the Chancery Court in a worker's compensation case, in which the trial court granted the employee's motion for non-suit and then entered a judgment of no liability for the employer on its counterclaim. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded.

William J. Snyder v. Ltg. Lufttechnische Gmb; and HSM Pressen-GmbH
01S01-9607-FD-00143
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Magistrate Denis H. Inman

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,1 this Court has accepted two questions certified to us by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The questions are as follows: 1. Whether products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product proximately caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. 2. If “no,” of what effect is Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 28-108? 3 As explained below, the answer to the first certified question is that products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce relevant evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product was the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury may consider all evidence relevant to the actions of the employer with respect to the defendants’ product in assessing whether the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing the elements necessary to recover against the defendants. However, in making that determination, the jury may not assess fault against the employer. Our answer to the first question makes it unnecessary to reach the second one.

Tammy R. Ganzevoort vs. Richard B. Russell, Martha T. Russell, and Jim Cassetty d/b/a Jim Cassetty Realty - Concurring
01S01-9602-CV-00040
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court and dismissing an action for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act1 brought by the purchaser of  residential real property against the seller and the seller’s broker. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the suit is affirmed.

Ganzevoort vs. Russell
01S01-9602-CV-00040

Steele , et. al. vs. Industrial Dev. Bd. of Metro Gov't.
01S01-9607-FD-00136

Dept. of Health, Bureau of Medicaid vs. Jaco
01S01-9609-CH-00171

Lamar Fletcher vs. State
02S01-9606-CR-00056

State of Tennessee v. Jubal Carson
03S01-9606-CR-00063
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the defendant, who assisted his co-defendants in committing an aggravated robbery, was criminally responsible under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2) for additional offenses committed by them.

Marvin & Ellyse McCarley vs. West Food Quality Service
02S01-9610-CV-00085

Marvin & Ellyse McCarley vs. West Food Quality Service
02S01-9610-CV-00085

Westand Land West Community Association, et al. v. Knox County, et al.
03S01-9610-CH-00098
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Sharon J. Bell

We granted this appeal to determine whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-105(a) mandates submission of a newly proposed zoning classification amendment to the regional planning commission following the commission's rejection of a similar but different proposed classification. The Court of Appeals held that the statute does not require futile resubmissions of revised proposals. We, however, find that the proposal in question was not merely a revised prior
proposal but was a new and previously unsubmitted proposal. The statute clearly mandates submission of new proposals to the regional planning commission. We reverse the Appellate Court and hold that the new zoning proposal should have been submitted to the regional planning commission.

03S01-9607-CV-00082
03S01-9607-CV-00082

State of Tennessee v. David Paul Martin
03S01-9604-CR-00040
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard Baumgardner

We granted review in this case to determine whether a court-ordered mental evaluation violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

02S01-9611-Ch-00101
02S01-9611-Ch-00101
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
01S01-9505-CR-00080

Stein vs. Davidson Hotel Company
01S01-9610-CV-00202

Kite vs. Kite
03S01-9610-CH-00099

Krick vs. City of Lawrenceburg
01S01-9511-CV-00220

State vs. Chad Douglas Poole
02S01-9607-CC-00064