State vs. Larry Holbrooks
01C01-9701-CR-00011

State vs. Timothy Brown
01C01-9701-CR-00032
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Christopher Parker
01C01-9701-CR-00037

McGlothlin vs. Bristol
03A01-9706-CV-00236

State vs. Judy Leath
01C01-9511-CC-00393

State vs. Harry Reed
01C01-9701-CC-00007

State vs. Gaylen Rhodes
02C01-9703-CC-00121
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Darwin Windham
02C01-9705-CC-00196

State vs. Mark Rawlings
02C01-9612-CR-00475
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Mccartie

Knoll vs. Knoll
03A01-9707-CH-00275

Stephens vs. Revco
03A01-9708-CV-00351

Worley vs. State
03A01-9708-JV-00366

Larry Stephen Roseberry, v. Janis Roseberry
03A01-9706-CH-00237
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

In this divorce action, the appellant (husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court questioning the amount of child support he was ordered to pay, the division of marital property and alimony, including the amount, nature, and duration. The appellee (wife) seeks attorney fees for this appeal. No issue is presented relating to the granting of the divorce. We note that at the time of the trial, the husbanc had more than enough life insurance in force to satisfy this requirement.

Donald Neil Pierce, v. Branda Ann Radford Pierce
03A01-9707-GS-00250
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Austin

This is a divorce case.  On appeal, Brenda Pierce (wife) raises the issues of whether the tril court erred by refusing to grant her periodic alimony, by failing to grant her the divorce, and by failing to grant her discretionary costs and attorney's fees. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

Cheri Owens Tuncay v. Engin Halif Tuncay - Concurring
02A01-9709-CH-00209
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This is a divorce case. Plaintiff-appellant Cheri Owens Tuncay was granted a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Mrs. Tuncay appeals the trial court’s division of the marital debts as well as the court’s failure to award her alimony beyond $5,000 in attorney fees.

Wilma Jean Lampley, v. Gordon Ray Lampley
01A01-9708-CH-00423
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge H. Denmark Bell

This is a post-divorce decree proceeding in which the defendant husband has appealed from an unsatisfactory disposition of his counter petition to terminate alimony.

Rickye D. Anderson v. Lois L. Anderson
01A01-9704-CH-00186
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

Rickye D. Anderson (the Father) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition to reduce his child support payments to his ex-wife, L. Lois Anderson (the Mother), and ordering him to pay a portion of the Mother’s attorney’s fees. We affirm.

JoAnne Pollock v. Donnie F. Pollock
01A01-9706-CH-00271
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The defendant, Donnie F. Pollock, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court awarding the plaintiff a divorce on grounds of adultery and inappropriate marital conduct, awarding plaintiff, $8,000.00 alimony in solido and $500.00 per month alimony until she reaches 65 years or one of the parties dies; ordering defendant to pay $2,400.00 of plaintiff’s attorneys fees, and distributing the marital estate and liability for debts.

William Jeffrey Tarkington, v. Rebecca Juanita Tarkington
01A01-9706-CV-00270
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

The husband, William Jeffrey Tarkington, has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court finding him and his wife, Rebecca Juanita Tarkington, guilty of inappropriate marital conduct and declaring them to be divorced pursuant to TCA § 36-4-129.

State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell

The State of Tennessee filed a petition to rehear in the above styled case on November 24, 1997. The State contends this court should rehear the case pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, it contends our decision 1) conflicts with existing case law, 2) conflicts with a principle of law, and 3) overlooks a material fact upon which the parties were not heard. It is the opinion of this court that the motion is not well taken and, therefore, should be denied.

Roger Perry and Doris Perry, v. Donald Van Hise and Josephine Van Hise, Individually and D/B/A Van Hise Construction Company
01A01-9705-CH-00227
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

This appeal involves the construction of a home. Plaintiffs engaged one of the defendants, Donald Van Hise, (hereafter, the defendant) to construct a home on their property. On May 24, 1994, defendant signed a proposal to construct the house, reserving the right to withdraw the proposal within 30 days, if not accepted by plaintiff. One of the plaintiffs signed an acceptance of the proposal. The other did not. On June 25, 1994, defendant tendered another proposal on different terms, which proposal was accepted by both plaintiffs. The second proposal contained an estimated time of completion of 3-1/2 - 4-1/2 months. Both proposals contained a base contract price subject to revision for changes during construction. Both contracts refer to “plans and specifications” but the record contains no plan and only a partial set of specifications. The plans and specifications were not specifically prepared for plaintiffs, but were “generic,” that is, sold on the general market, to be altered as desired; and alterations were made, producing part of the present controversy. Promptly after the second proposal was accepted.

Joey Brown, as next friend and natural guardian of Mitchell W. Brown, v. Walmart Discount Cities
01A01-9705-CV-00217
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H., Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

In this slip and fall case in which a child slipped on some ice cubes in the vestibule of a large department store, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but attributed 70 % of the fault to the unknown person who placed or dropped the ice on the floor. Ruling on a post-trial motion, the trial judge held that the store’s fault was 100% because the plaintiff could not sue the unknown tortfeasor. On appeal, the defendant asserts that there is no evidence to support the verdict and that the trial judge erred in modifying the jury’s verdict with respect to the degree of fault. We find that there is evidence from which the jury could have found that the store was negligent and that the store cannot attribute part of the fault to the unknown tortfeasor. We, therefore, affirm the lower court’s judgment.

Charles O'Guinn v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9703-CR-00084
Authoring Judge: Judge Lynn Brown
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt

Charles Ray O’Quinn, the petitioner, appeals pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On July 27, 1989, the petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated rape. The offenses occurred in April or May, and in June, 1988. He received Range II sentences of 35 years in the aggregate. The petitioner contends that his convictions for aggravated rape are void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea for that offense. See State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), rev'd, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

Homebound Medical Care of Southeast Tennessee, Inc., v. Hospital Staffing Services of Tennessee, Inc. Jeanine Warren, Nancy Hyde, AllCare Professional Svcs., and Stella Messer
03A01-9707-CH-00303
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples

This is an action whereby the plaintiff seeks to enforce a convenant not to compete in an employment agreement between the defendant, Warren, and the plaintiff. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The motion did not set out any grounds for relief but simply stated that defendants "file this motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Tennesse Rules of Civil Procedure" and referred the court to grounds stated in their briefs in support of themotion. The brief is not included in the record. Apparently, the parties did not make a designation of record and the Clerk of the court correctly omitted the brief pursuant to Rule 24, Tennessee rulesof Appellate Procedure.

Gina Franklin et al., v. Allied Signal, Inc.
02A01-9704-CV-00088
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit A. Lafon

This appeal involves a suit filed by plaintiffs, Gina (“Mrs. Franklin”) and Barnee Franklin (“the Franklins”), against defendant, Allied Signal, Inc. (“Allied”), for personal injuries sustained when Mrs. Franklin tripped and fell on Allied’s premises on a metal loading ramp which protruded above the dock floor by one to two inches. The trial court granted Allied’s motion for summary judgment. The Franklins appeal and pose the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court committed error in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) whether the “open and obvious rule” bars plaintiff’s recovery or is only a factor to be considered in assessing comparative negligence. For reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.