SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

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

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

State vs. Downey
03S01-9604-CC-00039

State vs. Barry L. Speck
02S01-9601-CR-00001
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

Moore vs. State
03S01-9607-CR-00073

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

03S01-9610-CV-00106
03S01-9610-CV-00106