State vs. Barry Waters Rogers
M1999-01358-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
The defendant, Barry Waters Rogers, was indicted for arson, conspiracy to commit arson, and vandalism. The jury acquitted the defendant on the charge of conspiracy to commit arson but, on the arson charge, returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of facilitation of arson. Although the jury also returned a guilty verdict for facilitation of vandalism, the trial court later set that aside. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of three and one-half years in the Department of Correction, with probation to be granted after the first year of service. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and complains that he was improperly sentenced. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Russell E. Mills
II-199-28-A
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter

Michelle Baker Pisano v. Gerry Baker
W1999-02660-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William Michael Maloan

Frank Mills vs. Luis Wong
W1999-00665-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal presents a dispute over proper venue arising out of a medical malpractice suit against multiple defendants. The Shelby County Circuit Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue. The case is before this court on an interlocutory appeal.

Sam Simpson vs. Addie Davis
W1999-00689-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
This appeal arises from a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment action initiated by Sam Simpson against Addie Davis. Simpson alleged Davis breached her duty as trustee of her deceased mother's estate and was unjustly enriched by Simpson's construction of a residence on Davis' property. The trial court held that although Davis did not breach a fiduciary duty, she was unjustly enriched. The court ordered the sale of both the property and residence with proceeds to be allocated between the parties. Davis appeals.

State of Tennessee v. Larry E. Scales
1998-00142-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

Steven Porreca v. Chili's Inc., & Liberty Mutual
E1999-00961-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
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 plaintiff was burned while working for the defendant restaurant. The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury but did argue the award of fifty percent permanent partial disability was excessive and also contended the trial court should have allowed an offset for overpayment of approximately two weeks of temporary total disability. We affirm.

Smith v. Safety Kleen Corporation
E1999-01123-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
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 plaintiff, Everett Alan Smith, filed various motions in this case, all of which were denied by the trial court. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's: (1) refusal to award temporary total benefits from the date of injury until time of medical improvement rating by physician or from the date of injury until trial; (2) denial of a lump sum payment of attorney fees because the request was in the form of a motion rather than in the form of a petition; (3) denial of motion requiring the defendant to pay for medication and authorized physician benefits because the plaintiff sought these by motion rather than by petition. The plaintiff also raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to pay certain pharmacy charges. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

American Cable Corp. vs. ACI Management, Inc., et al
M1997-00280-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a legal dispute arising out of a contract to install television cable in Alabama and Mississippi. After the corporation that installed the cable did not receive full payment for its work, it filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County Tennessee against the corporation and partnership that hired it and the president of the defendant corporation. The trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing the claims against the defendant corporation's president, and the installer took a default judgment against the corporation for $1,059,743. On this appeal, the installer takes issue with the summary judgment dismissing its claims against the defendant corporation's president. We have determined that the trial court properly granted the summary judgment because the installer failed to demonstrate that it will be able to prove all the essential elements of its tort claims against the defendant corporation's president.

Levenhagen vs. Levenhagen
M1998-00967-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Husband appeals the trial court's refusal to vacate its order divorcing the parties, claiming the order is void because it failed to include an affirmative finding that the parties made adequate provision by written agreement for the custody and maintenance of their children. In addition, Husband contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by suspending his visitation with the couple's children until he received counseling, and then ordering supervised visitation. He also maintains that the trial court improperly based its finding that he was guilty of criminal contempt for failure to pay child support on insufficient evidence. Husband claims he was entitled to a jury trial on the contempt issue. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Ofman vs. Woodford
M1999-00736-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
This is a suit by an attorney for breach of an oral contract relative to the professional services of an expert witness. Suit was instituted by civil warrant in the general sessions court. Following a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, an appeal was perfected by the defendant to the circuit court where the case was tried de novo, non-jury and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.00. The defendant appealed, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Blaylock vs. Nash
M1999-00568-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This negligence action arises out of a collision between a cow and a car driven by the plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the alleged owner and operator of a stockyard from which the cow supposedly escaped. We affirm the trial court's decision finding that the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant breached his duty of care. However, we do not find that the plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's decision was frivolous.

Fillmore vs. Fillmore
M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh (Anderson) Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. The court issued a Final Decree of Divorce, divided the parties' marital property and debts, and awarded Ms. Anderson alimony in solido. In addition, the court awarded custody of the one minor child to Ms. Anderson and set a child support amount based on the appropriate guidelines. On appeal, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include as a marital debt a pre-marital debt of Mr. Fillmore. In addition, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court improperly calculated his child support obligation based on his current income. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Henderson vs. Henderson
M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.

Henderson vs. Henderson
M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.

Holley vs. Haehl
M1999-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Landowner sued adjoining landowner and timber cutter in general sessions court for trespass and the cutting of timber on her land. From an adverse judgment, landowner appealed to the circuit court. After a trial de novo, the trial court held that adjoining landowner owned the land involved by adverse possession and entered judgment for defendants. Landowner has appealed.

Edgar/Mary Mulrooney vs. Town of Collierville
W1999-01474-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal arises from a quo warranto action filed by the Mulrooneys ("Property Owners") on behalf of residents of subdivisions annexed by Collierville ("Town"). Property Owners claimed that Town did not meet the statutory requirements needed to annex the subdivisions. The jury returned a verdict on behalf of Town, finding that the annexation was proper. Thereafter, Property Owners filed a motion for new trial which was denied by the court. Property Owners appeal.

State vs. Retha Smith
W1999-00607-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The defendant appeals her jury conviction and sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, sell or deliver. She received a sentence of three years with one year to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on community corrections. The defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) whether the prosecuting attorney made improper remarks during his closing argument; and (3) whether her sentence is excessive. Upon a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for the assessment of the fine.

State vs. James Starnes
W1999-01854-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The petitioner appeals from a denial of post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We conclude the record is insufficient for proper appellate review. Thus, we remand to the trial court for an additional hearing.

Nancy Bloom vs. Douglas Bloom
W1998-00365-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio
This is a divorce case. The parties were married for eighteen years and had a fifteen year old son. The wife was granted the divorce. The wife was awarded, inter alia, the marital home and the equity in it, 60% of the value of various financial assets, her automobile, and various household furnishings. Custody of the parties' son was awarded to the wife, and the husband was granted supervised visitation. The husband was ordered to pay child support. The wife was awarded 60 months of rehabilitative alimony, with the rate of rehabilitative alimony to increase when the husband's child support obligation ends. The wife's request for attorney's fees was denied. The husband appeals the division of the marital property and the amount of rehabilitative alimony awarded. The wife appeals the denial of her request for attorney's fees. We affirm, finding that the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's division of the marital property, the award of alimony, and the denial of the wife's request for attorney's fees.

State vs. Donaven Brown
W1999-00629-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
The defendant and the victim were both maximum security inmates at the Corrections Corporation of America facility in Clifton, Tennessee. After the victim, his hands and feet restrained, had been released from his cell to use a telephone, the defendant asked to be released from his cell take a shower. After his hands, but not his feet had been restrained, he pushed a correctional officer aside and ran from his cell, confronting the victim near the telephones. "Bad blood" had existed between the victim and the defendant, both of whom had armed themselves that day with shanks, or homemade prison knives. The victim received six knife stab wounds, two of which were potentially fatal. The defendant was then charged with first degree murder and felony possession of a weapon in a penal institution and, following his convictions of both offenses, sentenced to life without parole and three years, respectively, the sentences to be served concurrently. He timely appealed, presenting as issues whether the trial court erred in allowing proof that he had asserted his right to remain silent and requested an attorney and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for first degree murder. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Marcus Askew
98-07544-45-46
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Matthew Leonard & Bernie Evans
E1999-02724-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The appellants, Matthew W. Leonard and Bernie J. Evans, each pled guilty in the Criminal Court for Washington County to three counts of kidnapping, a class C felony, three counts of aggravated assault, a class C felony, one count of escape, a class E felony, and one count of theft over $10,000, a class C felony. The appellants requested that the trial court grant them full probation. After a probation hearing, the trial court denied the appellants' request. The appellants present the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in denying the appellants full probation. After a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Johnny L. Frye v. Athens Products
03S01-9904-CV-00043
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John B. Hagler
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff appeals from the trial court finding that he had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his work. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. There is little need to go into significant detail concerning the facts in this case. There are significant discrepancies between the testimony of the plaintiff at trial and in the statements he made to medical providers concerning whether he sustained an injury on June 1, 1998, or whether he experienced pain on the prior Sunday while walking in the mall, or whether he sustained an injury at work on June 2nd. The plaintiff gave the only evidence concerning an alleged accidental injury. The determination of the trial judge was, by necessity, based upon his assessment of the evidence and his ruling based upon the testimony of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the plaintiff did not tell the defendant of any work- related accident until June 28th but found that he did notify the physician and especially the nurse practitioner on June 2nd that he sustained a work-related injury on June 1. The court found this unusual and ruled that the two histories cancelled out each other, thus causing the plaintiff to fail in carrying his burden of proof. 2

State vs. Henry Marshall Jr.
W1999-01159-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
Defendant Henry Marshall, Jr. was convicted of reckless aggravated assault following a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I Standard Offender to a term of two years, with the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in the local jail, and the remaining one year and one day on supervised probation. The Defendant challenges his conviction and his sentence, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on self-defense, (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault and (3) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified herein.