Waymon Frederic Axley, v. Beverly Anne Mallette Axley
02A01-9412-CV-00283
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Michael Maloan

After a thirty year marriage,1 Waymon Frederic Axley (Husband) and Beverly Anne Mallette Axley (Wife) were divorced by final decree entered by the trial court in August 1994.2 This appeal concerns the trial court’s award to Wife of $1,500 per month as alimony in futuro and, as additional alimony, $177.62 per month for 36 consecutive months to continue Wife on Husband’s health insurance through his employer. Wife seeks an increase in the award as well as her attorney’s fees for services rendered in this appeal. She frames the issues as follows:

Terry T. Johnson, v. Michael H. McCommon & MLG & W
02A01-9502-CV-00029
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wyeth Chandler

This action was brought against Michael McCommon and Memphis Light, Gas, and 2 Water (MLG&W) for personal injuries sustained when McCommon, an employee of MLG&W, struck plaintiff with his vehicle. McCommon was dismissed from the suit prior to trial. Following a bench trial, the lower court held that plaintiff's negligence was greater than that of the defendant and that plaintiff proximately caused her own injuries. Because we do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination, we affirm the judgment dismissing plaintiff's case.

Waymon Frederick Axley, v. Beverly Anne Mallette Axley
02A01-9412-CV-00283
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Michael Maloan

After a thirty year marriage,1 Waymon Frederic Axley (Husband) and Beverly Anne Mallette Axley (Wife) were divorced by final decree entered by the trial court in August 1994.2 This appeal concerns the trial court’s award to Wife of $1,500 per month as alimony in futuro and, as additional alimony, $177.62 per month for 36 consecutive months to continue Wife on Husband’s health insurance through his employer. Wife seeks an increase in the award as well as her attorney’s fees for services rendered in this appeal. She frames the issues as follows: I. Did the trial judge err by awarding Wife only $1,500 per month in periodic alimony? II. Should this Court remand this matter to the trial court with the instruction to set a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for this appeal?

State of Tennessee vs. Danny R. Morris
01C01-9506-CC-00206
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

The defendant, Danny R. Morris, was convicted at a jury trial of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to a term of confinement of twelve years in the Department of Correction.

State of Tennessee v. Danny R. Morris - Dissenting
01C01-9506-CC-00206
Authoring Judge: Presiding Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

I respectfully dissent.

The crime committed by the appellant, Danny R. Morris, was despicable. I am sure that the jury, like myself, was enraged as the evidence unfolded. This atrocious crime was committed in the jury’s home county by two inmates who escaped from a prison in an adjoining county. Morris and Barrett were much younger than the victim. They feigned illness and acted as if one of them needed assistance. When the elderly victim stopped to lend assistance, Morris and Barrett took advantage of the victim’s act of kindness. Nevertheless, we as citizens must not lose sight of the fact that ours is a Nation of laws. These laws govern the conduct of every citizen. As this Court said in Hodges v. State, 491 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972), cert. denied (Tenn. 1973): “[O]dious individuals are not governed by one law and the remaining citizens by another; all are protected by the same general law.”

Jimmy Arnold v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al., - Concurring
01-A-01-9508-CH-00375
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review the Parole Board’s denial of parole. We affirm because we find that the petition in the lower court does not contain any  allegations which show that the Board acted illegally, arbitrarily, or in excess of its jurisdiction.

Dewey Richard Farley and wife, Pamela Farley, and Tommy West, v. James Clayton, Individually and D/B/A Luv Homes, Clayton Homes, Inc. et al.
01A01-9510-CV-00429
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

This is an action for misrepresentations and inducement of breach of contract relating to the trial and settlement of a personal injury case. The original plaintiffs and a co-defendant have sued the other defendants for misrepresenting or concealing material facts which (1) induced the plaintiffs to settle their original claim for less than its worth, and (2) induced the defendants’ insurance company not to represent the other defendant. The Circuit Court of Putnam County granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.

Dewey Richard Farley and wife, Pamela Farley, and Tommy West v. James Clayton, Individually and D/B/A Luv Homes, Clayton Homes, Inc., Individually and D/B/A Luv Homes and Ch of Al, Inc. et al.
01A01-9510-CV-00429
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

This is an action for misrepresentations and inducement of breach of contract relating to the trial and settlement of a personal injury case. The original plaintiffs and a co-defendant have sued the other defendants for misrepresenting or concealing material facts which (1) induced the plaintiffs to settle their original claim for less than its worth, and (2) induced the defendants’ insurance company not to represent the other defendant. The Circuit Court of Putnam County granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.

Evelene V. Stein, v. Davidson Hotel Company
01A01-9509-CV-00407
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

This is an appeal by plaintiff/appellant, Evelene N. Stein, from a judgment dismissing five of the seven claims alleged by Ms. Stein against defendant/appellant, Davidson Hotel Company ("Davidson").

James Michael Gee v. Amy Elizabeth (Mischell) Gee - Concurring
01-A-01-9509-CH-00427
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Alex W. Darnell

The captioned defendant has appealed from a partial judgment which resolved some, but not all, of the issues in this divorce case. The judgment is not a final judgment appealable as of right, and is subject to revision by the Trial Court at any time before all issues are determined. T.R.A.P. Rule 3(a).

Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson, v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate of Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased.
01A01-9511-CH-00528
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

The captioned executrix has appealed from a non-jury judgment of the Chancery Court that a will dated April 6, 1989 is the true, whole and last will and testament of Jennie Mai Jackson, deceased.

Oak Highlands Homeowners' Association, Inc., v. Continental Development and Construction, Inc. and Nicholas S. Psillas
01A01-9511-CH-00535
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

The captioned plaintiff has appealed from the non-jury dismissal of its suit to enforce restrictions and has presented the following issues for review:

Frank R. Dalton v. Tennessee Board of Paroles - Concurring
01-A-01-9601-CH-00029
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

This appeal involves a prison inmate’s efforts to be paroled. After the Tennessee Board of Paroles declined to parole him, the inmate filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking review of the board’s decision. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the inmate appealed to this court. We have determined that the board has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and therefore, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Harlan White, v. State of Tennessee, Department of Correction
01A01-9602-CH-00071
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

This is an appeal by petitioner, Harlan White, from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for declaratory judgment on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

State of Tennesse v. Terry Wood -Dissenting
01S01-9501-CC-00015
Authoring Judge: Justice Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

I concur in the dissent of Justice White.

Wanda Cruise v. City of Columbia - Concurring
01S01-9508-CV-00132
Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe C. Loser

In this property confiscation case, the Court must decide whether a direct  appeal was timely and whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act's1 twelve-month statute of limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-20-305(b) applies to bar plaintiff's claim for damage to and loss of personal property seized by police officers employed by defendant, the City of Columbia. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the appeal was timely and that plaintiff's claim is controlled by the three-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-105 and is, therefore, not barred.

Fannie Tuggle and Hoyt Tuggle v. Allright Parking Systems, Inc.
02-S-01-9501-CV-00009
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

We granted this appeal to determine whether a party with a derivative claim - loss of consortium - is entitled to challenges under the peremptory jury challenge statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-3-105.

We conclude that the clear and unambiguous language of the jury challenge statute provides additional peremptory challenges to a party with a derivative claim,1 and that a new trial is required because the denial of that statutory right constitutes prejudice to the judicial process. In the interest of judicial economy, since a new trial is required, we have also decided that under comparative fault principles, the recovery of a spouse claiming loss of consortium will be reduced in proportion to or barred by the fault of the physically injured spouse. We, therefore, affirm the Court of  Appeals’ decision reversing and remanding for a new trial.

Can Do, Inc. Pension and Profit Sharing Plan and Successor Plans, Indiv. and as a Trustee for Georgoe W. Holder, Jr., v, Manier, Herod, Hollabaugh& Smith, C. Kinian Cosner, Jr. and H. Rowan Leathers, III
01S01-9501-CH-00013
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin Gilcrease

This case presents a question of first impression in Tennessee: whether or not a legal malpractice claim is assignable. We have determined that soundpublic policy reasons militate against allowing assignment of legal malpractice actions. We, therefore, reverse the Court of Appeals and dismiss the complaint.

Terry E. Wood v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9501-CC-00015
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

We granted the application of Terry E. Wood, the defendant, for permission to appeal in order to resolve an issue of first impression in Tennessee: whether the return of a sealed presentment 1 engages an accursed person's speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 9 , of the Tennessee Constitution. After a thorough examination of the reocrd and careful consideration of the issue, we conclude, for reasons appearing below, that the reutnr of a presentment, whether sealed or unsealed, whether the accompanying capias is executed or unexecuted, is a formal accusation that engages constitutional speedy trial provisions. Thus, we must apply the criteria of Barkery.Wingo 2 and state b. Bishop 3 to determine whether the thirteen-year delay in this case deprived the appellant of this constitutional speedy trial rights. We find that there was no such deprivation and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Giles E. Roberson and wife, Hazel B. Roberson, v. Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson and Pug Martin, individually and D/B/A Century 21 Pug Martin Realty and Stephen N. Snyder and, Barbara L. Snyder
03A01-9509-CH-00299
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jeffrey F. Stewart

This suit was filed by Plaintiffs Giles E. Roberson and his wife Hazel B. Roberson against Defendants Mary Margaret (Darwin) Wasson and Pug Martin, individually , and D/B/A Century 21 Pug Martin Realty. The Plaintiffs sought to have the Court declare that a strip of land approximately 18 feet in width, titled in the name of Mrs. Wasson, which lay between separate tracts owned by them (see appendix) "to have been abandoned and to be non-existent." The complaint was later amended to advance the theory of adverse possession, and still later to add as parties Defendant Stephen N. Snyder and wife Barbara L. Snyder, who had purchased the property from Mrs. Wasson.

Ray Donald Hawkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Tennessee
01S01-9508-CV-00126
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.,
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. The appellant sued his employer for workers' compensation benefits covering mental and emotional disability which resulted from being informed that he was about to be fired. The trial judge dismissed the action because it did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed. I. The complaint alleged that the appellant had worked for the Nashville Electric Service for thirty-one years, serving finally as Executive Assistant General Manager. On March 11, 1992, one hour before a scheduled meeting of the Power Board, a Board member informed the appellant that at the meeting the Board would vote to dismiss him. Although the rumor turned out to be false, the appellant alleged that the shock and fright produced by the unwelcome news caused such mental and emotional stress that he became permanently disabled. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial judge initially overruled the motion but decided to grant it, after further proceedings in the case. II. - 2 -

Ray Donald Hawkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Tennessee
01S01-9508-CV-00126
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Hamilton Gayden, Jr.,
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. The appellant sued his employer for workers' compensation benefits covering mental and emotional disability which resulted from being informed that he was about to be fired. The trial judge dismissed the action because it did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed. I. The complaint alleged that the appellant had worked for the Nashville Electric Service for thirty-one years, serving finally as Executive Assistant General Manager. On March 11, 1992, one hour before a scheduled meeting of the Power Board, a Board member informed the appellant that at the meeting the Board would vote to dismiss him. Although the rumor turned out to be false, the appellant alleged that the shock and fright produced by the unwelcome news caused such mental and emotional stress that he became permanently disabled. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial judge initially overruled the motion but decided to grant it, after further proceedings in the case. II. - 2 -

State of Tennessee v. Barry Hughes
03C01-9410-CR-00454
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bebb

The appellant, Barry Hughes, challenges, by extraordinary appeal, the trial court's judgment affirming the district attorney general's denial of his application for pretrial diversion. The appellant sought to divert two counts of official oppression, one count of official misconduct, and one count of fabricating evidence. The charges stem from allegations that, while performing his duties as a police officer, he planted cocaine in a civilian's car. We affirm.

Hayden D. Wilson, Jr., v. Kathryn Ann Moore
01A01-9506-CV-00235
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

This appeal involves a marriage that failed in less than three years. The husband filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sequatchie County seeking a divorce and the enforcement of the parties’ prenuptial agreement. The wife also requested a divorce and challenged the validity of the prenuptial agreement. Following a bench trial, the trial court declared the parties divorced pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-129(b) (1991) and upheld the prenuptial agreement. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the parties their personal property and directed the husband to assume certain credit card indebtedness and to provide the wife medical insurance for up to thirty-six months. Both parties take issue with various portions of the final divorce decree on this appeal. We have determined that the trial court erred by failing to consider the husband’s income earned during the marriage as marital property. Accordingly, we modify the division of marital property and the award of spousal support.

Clifford Scott Goodwin, v. Judith Annette Wetz F/K/A Judith Annette Goodwin
01A01-9512-CH-00547
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

The captioned petitioner has appealed from the dismissal of his suit to enroll and modify a foreign divorce decree.