Be Tested In a Habeas Corpus Proceeding. See Haggard v. State, 475 S.W.2D 186, 187
02C01-9610-CC-00332

Lake Court of Criminal Appeals

02C01-9605-CR-00166
02C01-9605-CR-00166

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

02A01-9606-CH-00144
02A01-9606-CH-00144

Obion Court of Appeals

02a01-9605-CH-00101
02a01-9605-CH-00101
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Shelby Court of Appeals

03C01-9602-CR-00061
03C01-9602-CR-00061
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

03C01-9602-CR-00083
03C01-9602-CR-00083
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

03C01-9603-CC-00087
03C01-9603-CC-00087
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

03C01-9512-CC-00382
03C01-9512-CC-00382
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

03C01-9511-CR-00353
03C01-9511-CR-00353
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

03C01-9512-CC-00415
03C01-9512-CC-00415
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

Loudon Court of Criminal Appeals

02C01-9603-CR-00109
02C01-9603-CR-00109
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

02C01-9605-CC-00144
02C01-9605-CC-00144
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

Madison Court of Criminal Appeals

Relying In Part Upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 (Tenn. Crim.
02C01-9702-CC-00072

Lauderdale Court of Criminal Appeals

In Part Upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-Cc-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App.
02C01-9702-CC-00058

Lake Court of Criminal Appeals

02C01-9604-CC-00132
02C01-9604-CC-00132
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

Henry Court of Criminal Appeals

03S01-9603-CC-00023
03S01-9603-CC-00023

Supreme Court

03S01-9603-CV-00032
03S01-9603-CV-00032

Supreme Court

03A01-9609-CV-00289
03A01-9609-CV-00289

Knox Court of Appeals

Terry Jamar Norris v. Tony Parker, Warden
W2007-00594-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Lauderdale Court of Criminal Appeals

Lue Ann Smith, v. Winchester City Council, et. al.
01A01-9609-CV-00419
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Lue Ann Smith, from an order of the Franklin County Circuit Court quashing her writ of certiorari. The writ suspended the decisions of respondent/appellee, the Winchester City Council (“the Council”), allowing intervening petitioner, Karl Smith, permission and denying Appellant permission to sell fire works within the City of Winchester. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Franklin Court of Appeals

Robert A. Hewgley, Deane Pritchett, and H. Mel Weaver, v. Jose A. Vivo and wife Peggy M. Vivo
01A01-9506-CH-00266
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

This appeal involves the enforcement of a 47-year-old restrictive covenant in a residential subdivision in Tullahoma. After a physician converted one of the homes in the subdivision into a medical clinic, a group of property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Coffee County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce a restrictive covenant requiring the property in the subdivision to be used for residential purposes. The trial court, sitting without a jury, determined that the restrictive covenant remained enforceable, directed the physician to remove an illuminated exterior sign, and awarded attorney’s fees to the property owners. On this appeal,  the physician takes issue with the enforcement of the restrictive covenant and with the award of attorney’s fees. While we affirm the enforcement of the restrictive covenant, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Coffee Court of Appeals

Frank McNeil, MD. and Janet McNeil, M.D. v. TN. Board of Medical Examiners - Concurring
01A01-9608-CH-00383
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

The captioned petitioners sought judicial review and reversal of the administrative order of the respondent Board subjecting them to discipline for professional misconduct. From a judgment affirming the administrative order, the petitioners have appealed, presenting the issue for review in the following terms: The Petitioner-Appellants, Frank McNiel, M.D. and Janet McNiel, M.D., respectfully submit that the issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners’ decision to discipline their license to practice medicine in Tennessee should be reversed pursuant to T.C.A. §4-5-322(h) of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, in that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Ila Stephens Bertram v. Charles R. Gernt, Estate of Bruno Gernt, Inc. Champion International Corporation, Hood Coal Company, et. al .
01A01-9609-CH-00435
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

The plaintiff filed suit to establish present title to land in Fentress County that had previously belonged to her family. The Chancery Court dismissed her suit on the ground that she lost whatever interest she had in the land through foreclosure. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the trial court did not err in dismissing the suit, and we affirm.

Fentress Court of Appeals

Randall Myers v. Hurst Construction Company, Inc.
01A01-9609-CV-00397
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

The Trial Court and this Court have granted permission to the Hurst Construction Co., Inc., to appeal from an interlocutory order of the Trial Court overruling the motion of Hurst Construction Co., Inc., for summary judgment on grounds of the statute of limitations.

Rutherford Court of Appeals

Anthony Lee Eden, v. CherylAnn Eden
01A01-9609-CV-00427
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion, it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.
 

Davidson Court of Appeals