Regina L. Cable v. Charles E. Clemmons, Jr.
E1998-00526-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Swann

We granted this appeal to determine the following two issues: 1) whether double jeopardy bars multiple convictions for criminal contempt based on violations of an order of protection and 2) whether domestic violence counseling may be imposed as part of the sentence for criminal contempt. After finding the defendant guilty of six counts of criminal contempt, the trial court's sentence consisted of 1) ten days in jail for each act of contempt to be served consecutively and 2) forty-five weeks of domestic violence counseling. A new order of protection was issued. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence supported only one conviction for criminal contempt and that the trial court lacked the authority to impose counseling as part of a sentence for criminal contempt. After reviewing the record and authority, we hold that double jeopardy does not bar multiple convictions for criminal contempt and that the evidence supports three convictions in this case. We further hold that although the legislature has not specifically authorized domestic violence counseling as a sentence for criminal contempt, the trial court properly imposed the requirement as part of a new order of protection.

Hoskin (Brewerv. Seaman Corporation
E2000-00842-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III, Judge
The plaintiff was laid off 66 months after returning to work following settlement of her claim for workers' compensation benefits. After the lay-off she filed this action to recover additional benefits.

Karen Henson v. Finelli, Hauge, Sanders and Ragland, M.C.,
E2000-01193-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell, Chancellor
This is a Rule 6 case. The plaintiff alleges that after her claim for workers' compensation benefits for a cervical spine and shoulder injury was settled and judicially approved she continued to suffer pain and discomfort owing to a torn rotator cuff and nerve impingement which was not discovered by her treating physician, thus implicating Rule 6.2.

Terri L. Carter v. Cmh Manufacturing, Inc.,
E2000-00654-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle, Circuit Judge
This action seeking benefits for total and permanent disability attributable to a disputed diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome superimposed upon pre-existing injuries was dismissed. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of whether the plaintiff proved that she suffered a job-related injury, or that she suffered a vocational disability. We affirm the judgment.

Wayford Demonbreun, Jr. vs. Dennis J. Hughes, et al
M2000-01116-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
Plaintiff, inmate acting pro se, sued two former attorneys alleging that after the first attorney was removed from his criminal case and ordered to refund part of the retainer fee paid, the second attorney was appointed to represent plaintiff. Subsequently, the second attorney, without authorization, compromised and settled plaintiff's claim against the first attorney and converted the proceeds of the settlement to his own use. The first attorney was never served with process, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the second attorney. Plaintiff has appealed.

Maria Nelson vs. Dept. of Safety
M2000-01147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal arises from entry of a default judgment by the Appellee against the Appellant following the Appellant's failure to appear at a scheduled hearing. The Appellant filed a petition for judicial review with the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The trial court affirmed. The Appellant appeals from the Chancery Court of Davidson County's decision affirming the default judgment entered against the Appellant. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the trial court's decision.

Gabriel Alwin vs. Percy Pitzer
W1999-00537-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
An inmate filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the sentencing court in Wisconsin was without authority to convict on one of the three counts under which he was convicted and that his sentence had expired. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

Jaleesa Davis
W1999-01662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: A. V. Mcdowell
The Shelby County Juvenile Court terminated parental rights of the natural mother and father of minor child. Parents have appealed. We affirm.

James Garrett vs. Isiah Roswer
W1999-02369-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This is a dispute among the members and officials of a church and the church pastor. The plaintiff church members and officials filed for injunctive relief against the defendant pastor of the church, seeking to remove him as pastor and prevent him from disposing of or eroding church assets. The trial court enjoined the pastor defendant from disposing of, eroding or concealing church assets, and also ordered an election. Under the court-ordered church election, the defendant was removed as pastor of the church. Subsequently, the defendant pastor executed a trust deed encumbering certain church properties. After the trust deed was foreclosed and the property was sold at a foreclosure sale, the defendant pastor filed a counter-complaint in the pending suit, alleging that he was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale and that title of the church property should be transferred to him. In payment of his bid, the defendant pastor tendered bonds issued by the church. The trial court referred to a special master eight issues relating to the ownership and value of the bonds. The special master and trial court found that the defendant pastor had not established that he paid for the bonds. The defendant pastor appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its finding on the bonds and that it failed to address or take evidence on additional issues raised in his counter-complaint. We affirm the decision of the trial court on the bonds, but remand the cause for proof on the remaining issues.

Eddie Williams vs. Alton Hesson
W2000-02725-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
This appeal involves a claim of discrimination and denial of access to the courts by a maximum security inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. The court below granted summary judgment to the defendants. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment.

Darlene Moore Collins v. Cmh Manufacturing, Inc. (Also
E1999-01225-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, III, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the plaintiff sixty-five percent impairment due to occupational asthma and awarded prejudgment interest to accrued benefits. The defendant argues the trial court's award was excessive because the plaintiff failed to adequately prove through medical testimony the causation and extent of her impairment. The defendant also appeals the amount of prejudgment interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the impairment award and remand for further findings of facts with regard to the prejudgment interest award.

State vs. Cornelius Michael Hyde
E2000-00042-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

Wade Nance v. State Industries, Inc., and Itt Hartford
M1999-02262-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank F. Drowota,III, J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Leonard W. Martin, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel 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 employee contends that the trial court erred in finding that the employee's conduct amounted to a willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-11(a). To clarify this area of workers' compensation law, the panel adopts a new standard which requires the employer to prove four elements in order to make out the affirmative defense of willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance. The Panel vacates the trial court's judgment and remands the case for a new trial in which the new standard will be applied.

State vs. Michael Knox
W2000-00362-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Mark Agee
The defendant pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to: eight years imprisonment; a $10,000 fine; and state probation, to be served upon his release from prison, with the condition that he perform five hundred hours of community service. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After review, we conclude that the record supports the sentence of incarceration, but that the trial court erred in ordering that the defendant be placed on probation and required to perform community service upon the completion of his prison sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the judgment ordering an eight-year sentence of incarceration and a fine of $10,000, but reverse the portion ordering that the defendant be placed on probation following his release and that he perform community service. In addition, we order that the defendant be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for a period of five years from the entry of an order prohibiting such.

State vs. Jimmy Harber Jr.
W2000-00462-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Mark Agee
While driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a road embankment, causing the death of one of his five teenaged passengers. He pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication as to the passenger who died, and to reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon as to all other passengers, agreeing to allow the trial court to set his sentences. Applying enhancement factors (10) and (16), the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for the vehicular homicide conviction, and two years for the reckless endangerment conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appeals the sentencing, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement and mitigating factors, and that he should have been granted probation. Based upon our review of the record and of applicable law, we conclude that the enhanced sentences are supported by the record, and that the trial court, therefore, committed no error in its failure to grant probation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Bobby Haley
W2000-00860-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
The defendant pled guilty to delivery of less than one-half gram of a Schedule II, controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

State vs. Demario Jackson
W2000-01421-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
The Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape of a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of fifteen years, to be served at one hundred percent. The Defendant complains in this post-conviction proceeding that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his plea, resulting in a plea that was not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily entered. The trial court denied relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State, Ex Rel., Tammy Davenport vs. Gerald Partridge
E1999-02779-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
This appeal from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court concerns whether the Juvenile Court erred in determining the child support obligation of the Appellant, Gerald Lamont Partridge. We vacate the order of the Juvenile Court and remand for further findings of fact.

Robert Covert vs. Kimberloy Covert
E2000-00864-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William R. Brewer

Robert Covert vs. Kimberloy Covert
E2000-00864-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Susano

Sharon Kelly vs. George Evans, III
E1999-00417-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Steven H. Jones
This is a suit initiated by Sharon S. Sarli (now Kelly) against George Leroy Evans, III, wherein she sought a determination that he was the father of her child. After Mr. Evans stipulated that he was indeed the father of the child, the Referee and the Juvenile Judge made various determinations relative to custody, child support and the like. Mrs. Kelly, being dissatisfied with a number of the determinations in the Referee's last order which on appeal was in the main affirmed by the Juvenile Judge, filed this appeal. We vacate the judgment of the Juvenile Court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Leslie vs. State
M1998-00585-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
We granted review in this post-conviction case to determine whether the trial court erred by allowing the appellant's appointed attorneys to withdraw and refusing to appoint new counsel. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not err either by allowing the appointed attorneys to withdraw or by refusing to appoint new counsel because the appellant had abused the post-conviction process. We conclude, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by allowing counsel to withdraw without a hearing and failing to appoint new counsel. We therefore reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel and proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Seibers vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.
M1999-02559-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith
This case involves a dispute between a lawyer and his former client over a fee in a personal injury case. The client discharged the lawyer before the case was concluded and agreed to give the lawyer a lien on the potential recovery for the work the lawyer had already performed. When the lawyer attempted to collect his fee after the case was settled by another lawyer, the former client asserted that the lawyer should forfeit his fee because he engaged in unethical conduct. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the lawyer had "technically" violated Tenn. S. Ct. R. 8, DR 5-105(A) but that the lawyer's conduct had not prejudiced the client and that the client had waived his conflict-of-interest claims. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the lawyer $69,525.83 in legal fees and expenses. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Castleman vs. Castleman
M2000-00270-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
Mother appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a default judgment awarding divorce to Father, distributing marital property, and awarding custody of the minor child to Father. Because no evidence was heard regarding factors which must be considered by a court in making these determinations, we reverse the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside the default judgment and remand this matter for a trial on the merits.

Stewart vs. State
M1998-00304-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
In this case, we determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission properly asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) and -307(a)(1)(F) for the alleged negligence of a state highway patrol officer in failing to properly control county police authorities at an arrest scene. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction, and the State requested permission to appeal on the issue of whether the Claims Commission properly asserted jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff, who stepped into the road before being hit by the truck, was fifty percent (50%) or more at fault for his accident. We hold that the Claims Commission lacked jurisdiction in this case under either section 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) or section 9-8-307(a)(1)(F), and because the Claims Commission possessed no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims, we decline to reach the issue of whether the plaintiff was more than fifty percent (50%) at fault for his accident. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals finding proper jurisdiction is reversed, and the plaintiff's claim against the State is dismissed.