Atwell v. Colonial
03S01-9609-CV-00090
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Harold W Imberly,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff, S. Scott Atwell, has appealed from the trial court's action in modifying a portion of a judgment which provided for a structured settlement of a workers' compensation claim. Originally the parties to this action entered a judgment on September 17, 1993, finding plaintiff to be totally (1%) disabled and providing the award would be payable as follows: a. Lump sum payment of $55,235. upon the entry of judgment. b. Payment of $588. every two weeks for a one year period. c. Lump sum payment of $14,34. on August 3, 1994. d. Lump sum payment of $14,34. on February 28, 1995. e. Lump sum payment of $15,37. on February 28, 1996. Upon learning plaintiff was engaged in certain work activities, the defendant, Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., filed a motion on March 8, 1995, to modify the last two annual payments upon the ground the evidence indicated the employee was not totally disabled. This motion was filed pursuant to the provisions of T. C. A. _ 5-6- 231 and Rule 6, T. R. Civ. P. After conducting a hearing, the trial court found there had been a "change of circumstances" and entered an order relieving the employer of the responsibility of paying the last two annual payments. The order did not state whether relief was granted pursuant to the statute or Rule 6 or both. This ruling was based upon evidence the employee had been working at a construction site in South Carolina over a certain period of time. Evidence of this nature was produced at the hearing by a private investigator who had observed the employee and a video made at the construction site. On appeal the employee argues the payments which the court abated were classified as lump sum payments and were not subject to modification under the statutory language and further that the evidence did not justify relief under Rule 6. 2

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

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

State vs. Gray
M1998-00256-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Gale B. Robinson
The sole remaining question in this appeal is whether in October of 1998 the General Sessions Court of Davidson County had jurisdiction over a contempt warrant issued for violating the Davidson County Circuit Court's order of protection. We affirm the General Sessions Court's exercise of jurisdiction.

Henry B. Waggoner vs. David Mills Warden
01C01-9604-CC-00142
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Randall Lunsford
01C01-9603-CC-00098

Thomas E. Montooth vs. State
01C01-9604-CC-00126
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

Douglas Trammell vs. State
01C01-9602-CC-00083
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton

State vs. Terry Wayne Farrar
01C01-9605-CC-00198

State vs. Lutcher O. Miles & Amber Dawn Miles
01C01-9604-CC-00169

Taft Douglas vs. State
01C01-9605-CR-00182

State vs. John P. Pelfrey
01C01-9606-CR-00251
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

Jimmy Lee Heard vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00120

State vs, Albert Lewis
02C01-9512-CR-00394
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. John Earnest
02C01-9604-CR-00114
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Ricky Tucker
02C01-9606-CR-00196
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Milton Spears, Jr.
02C01-9606-CR-00197

State of Tennessee vs. Joseph L. Fletcher
03C01-9606-CC-00229
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner

Defendant, Joseph L. Fletcher, appeals as of right a jury conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days and fined $610. Fletcher presents four issues for our review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction; 2) whether the state is required to prove a culpable mental state for a DUI conviction; 3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing testimony about certain drugs; and 4) whether the sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Clinton Darrell Turner
03C01-9604-CC-00151
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

The Defendant, Clinton Darrell Turner, appeals as of right his conviction and sentence for DUI. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant and driving on a revoked license in the Cocke County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days on the charge of driving while under the influence and six months for the charge of driving on a revoked license. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court suspended the entire sentence for the conviction of driving on a revoked license. On the DUI, the Defendant was ordered to serve seven days in jail with the balance to be served on probation. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Defendant also argues the trial court erred by allowing an officer to testify as to field sobriety tests when the officer was not trained to administer those tests. The last issue the Defendant raises is that the trial court erred by sentencing him to serve seven days rather than the two (2) day minimum provided by law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pig Improvement Co. Inc., v. Curt Reaver & Richard Alan Tracey, Jr. - Concurring
01-A-01-9610-CV-00478
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

This is an appeal by plaintiff/appellant, Pig Improvement Co., Inc., from a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County dismissing Pig Improvements’s complaint against defendants/appellees, Curt Reaver and Richard Alan Tracey, Jr. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Mary Jane Bohlen Duggan v. Frederick Louis Bohlen, III
01A01-9611-CV-00535
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Mary Jane Bohlen Duggan, from the decision of the trial court modifying the child support obligation of respondent/appellee, Frederick Louis Bohlen, III, and interpreting the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) and a later amendment to the MDA. The court concluded Mr. Bohlen was not in contempt and required him to pay $860.00 per month for the parties’ youngest child, $250.00 per month for each child over eighteen and under twenty-two provided the child is receiving a postgraduate education, andone-half of the children’s postgraduate education expenses. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Susanna Gillespie, A/K/A Susanna Grezegorcyk, A/K/A Susanna Kantack A/K/A Susanna Gregg, v. Stephen D. Graham and Lori G. Graham
01A01-9702-CH-00083
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

This is an appeal from the decision of the Williamson County Chancery Court. Plaintiff/appellant, Susanna Gregg, claims the chancery court erred when it denied her claim to attorney’s fees, and defendant/appellee, Steven D. Graham, claims the chancery court erred when it failed to dismiss the claim as outside the statute of limitations. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows: Defendant and his ex-wife, Lori G. Graham, entered into an agreement with Plaintiff and her husband, Donald Kanatack, for the lease/purchase of a piece of real estate. Defendant executed a note and a deed of trust in favor of Plaintiff and her husband on 15 March 1986. In exchange for the note, Plaintiff and her husband gave Defendant and Ms. Graham $10,477.17, which they used to pay real estate commissions and to set up an escrow account for repairs. The note listed the date of maturity as “on or at closing,” and the lease/purchase agreement listed the date of closing as 17 February 1988. Both the note and the deed contained provisions allowing Plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees if Plaintiff had to file suit to recover under each agreement. At the time of execution, however, the parties modified the note by drawing an “X” over five consecutive paragraphs. One of these paragraphs included the provision allowing the note holder to recover costs and expenses under certain circumstances.1 The parties failed to pay the note on 17 February 1988. The parties extended the original lease/purchase agreement for an additional year by executing an addendum on 27 May 1988. The new closing date passed without incident and both parties continued as they had in the contract for two additional years. A fire occurred on the property in 1990 while Plaintiff still occupied it.  After the insurance company paid the settlement to Defendant, he evicted Plaintiff from the property.

Mark E. Miller, v. Michael P. Schrimpf, Rita Schrimpf, and Tennessee Title and Trust Inc., et al.
01A01-9612-CH-00558
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

The purchaser of a subdivision lot sued his agent and the sellers’ agent because the lot could not be approved for a septic tank. His complaint stated causes of action for fraud, negligence, and a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Chancery Court of Sumner County granted summary judgment to both agents. We reverse the simple negligence claim as to the purchaser’s own agent. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Diana Sue Long, v. Michael George Long
01A01-9701-CV-00003
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This is an appeal by the defendant, Michael George Long, from that portion of the trial court’s judgment which awarded alimony in futuro to his former wife, Diana Sue Long, who was the plaintiff below.

Diana Sue Long, v. Michael George Long
01A01-9701-CV-00003
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This is an appeal by the defendant, Michael George Long, from that portion of the trial court’s judgment which awarded alimony in futuro to his former wife, Diana Sue Long, who was the plaintiff below.