Alpha Financial Services, Inc. vs. Karl Kindervater
E2000-01425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III

Alpha Financial Services, Inc. vs. Karl Kindervater
E2000-01425-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III

Mary Browning vs. Harold D. Vandergriff, Jr., D/B/A Sunrise Market & Deli
E1999-02711-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox County the Defendant/Appellant, Harold D. Vandergriff, Jr., appeals the Circuit Court's judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict allowing damages to Plaintiff/Appellee, Mary Browning, for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, dismiss the complaint and remand for collection of costs below.

E2000-00824-C0A-R3-CV
E2000-00824-C0A-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. John Ruff
W1999-01536-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

The Defendant, John Ruff, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him. He asks this Court to enter an order dismissing his case with prejudice. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the charges against the Defendant without prejudice; thus, we affirm the action of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting
W1999-01536-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is
availed to the defendant under Rule 3, I would conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s issue with respect to the dismissal of charges without prejudice. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Although the practical result is the same in that the action of the trial court is not being reversed, I would dismiss the appeal.

Erskine Leroy Johnson vs. State
W1997-00024-SC-R11-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: William H. Williams

The sole issue in this capital post-conviction appeal is whether the State improperly withheld material, exculpatory evidence at the appellee's capital sentencing hearing. The appellee was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death in 1985, and in 1991, he filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other things, that the State improperly withheld a police report that was discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The post-conviction court denied relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and vacated the capital sentence. Finding that the police report was exculpatory and material, the intermediate court held that a new sentencing hearing was constitutionally required. The State then appealed to this Court. For the reasons given herein, we hold that the State improperly withheld the police report, which was both "evidence favorable to the accused" and material as to the issue of sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals vacating the appellee's sentence, and we remand this case to the Shelby County Criminal Court for a new capital sentencing hearing.

In Re: Estate of Constantine Anagnost
E2000-02321-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
This litigation involves a claim against an estate. The claimant asserts that the decedent breached a contract which purportedly obligated the decedent to convey to the claimant a certain parcel of property upon the claimant's satisfaction of his contractual obligations. The estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the issues relating to the existence of the purported contract had been decided adversely to the claimant in an earlier suit, thereby barring the present claim under the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court granted summary judgment to the estate, and the claimant now appeals, asserting that the prior judgment does not bar the instant claim. We affirm.

Janine S. Taylor Hines vs. Richard Michael Tilimon
E2000-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
This is an interstate custody dispute. Janine S. Taylor Hines ("Mother") filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment pertaining to the custody of the parties' minor child. She also sought to modify certain foreign orders pertaining to the visitation rights of the defendant, Richard Michael Tilimon ("Father"). The trial court (a) entered a default judgment against Father, (b) declared Tennessee to be the child's home state, (c) decreed that custody would remain with Mother, and (d) limited Father's visitation to supervised visits in the state of Tennessee. The court later denied Father's motion to set aside the default judgment. Father appeals, raising issues as to subject matter jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction, venue, and service of process. He also argues that the trial court erred (1) in denying his request for a continuance of the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for default judgment; (2) in not allowing him to participate by telephone in the hearing on his motion to set aside the default judgment; (3) in denying his motion to set aside the default judgment; (4) in ordering supervised visitation; and (5) in awarding Mother her attorney's fees. By a separate issue, Mother seeks attorney's fees for this appeal. We affirm and remand for a hearing to set Mother's fees on appeal.

Joseph Hough v. State of Tennessee
E2000-01621-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Michael S. Lacy

James Rines v. State of Tennessee
E2000-01066-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his “petition to correct illegal judgment/sentence.” Finding no basis for a rightful appeal or a discretionary appeal via the common law writ of certiorari, we dismiss the appeal.

State Department of Children's Services vs. RC
E2000-01939-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: William H. Russell
In this action to terminate parental rights, the mother didn't appear for trial and the Trial Court terminated her parental rights. On appeal, she argues her constitutional rights were violated by proceeding to trial in her absence, and termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.

Custom Packaging, Inc. vs. Patti Holliday, et al
E2000-01744-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Custom Packaging, Inc., appeals a summary judgment granted against it in its suit seeking recovery on a sworn account for merchandise sold according to the complaint to "Patti Holliday, Ind. & d/b/a Repeat Fibre." The Trial Court sustained Ms. Holliday's motion for summary judgment, finding there are no material disputed facts. We vacate the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings.

State vs. King
E1998-00283-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
We granted review to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error by conducting trial proceedings in violation of a common law rule that prohibits judicial functions on Sunday. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the defendants' convictions for second-degree murder and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court violated a common law rule prohibiting judicial functions on Sunday and that such proceedings were "absolutely void." We conclude that conducting judicial proceedings on Sunday does not violate the Tennessee Constitution or any state statute and that the justifications for the common law rule are no longer sufficiently persuasive to invalidate Sunday proceedings as a matter of law. We further hold that the issue of whether to conduct judicial functions on Sunday rests within the discretion of the trial court. In exercising this discretion, the trial court should be deferential to the preferences of the litigants, witnesses, jurors, and attorneys; must be mindful of the need for every participant in a trial proceeding to be prepared and rested; must respect and accommodate the genuinely-held religious view of any litigant, witness, juror or attorney; and must weigh all of these concerns against whatever pressing need or compelling interest may necessitate a Sunday proceeding. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion under the facts of this case and, therefore, affirm the result reached by the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the separate grounds stated herein.

State vs. Fields
E1998-00388-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
The issue raised on this appeal is whether the defendant's conviction of the Class C felony of facilitation of an illegal drug transaction within 200 yards of a school overcomes the presumption in favor of alternative sentencing so as to justify a sentence of confinement. The trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals found confinement necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. We conclude that the evidence presented is insufficient to overcome the presumption of alternative sentencing. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to the trial court to determine an appropriate alternative sentence.

Elsie Anne Bullock v. Medical Professional, Inc., and
E1998-00315-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Peoples, H.N., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr., Judge
The appellant, Elsie Bullock, appeals the dismissal of her claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court found that she had "failed to meet her burden of proof that the conditions of which she complains are related to work-related accident of February 14, 1996." Ms. Bullock contends the trial court (1) erred in finding that she did not have a compensable injury to her back, and (2) erred in finding she did not have a compensable mental injury as a result of the injury she sustained at work. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

David Palmer v. State of Tennessee
M2000-00371-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief from his conviction for aggravated child abuse, arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during voir dire; and, (3) he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. After the post-conviction court denied his petition, the petitioner appealed to this court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. Donald Craig Miller
M2000-00962-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The Defendant, Donald Craig Miller, pled guilty to burglary, Class D felony, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement wherein he was to receive a sentence of four (4) years, with the manner of the service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court following the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the four-year sentence, but ordered three and one-half years incarceration, followed by service of four years in Community Corrections in a "split-confinement" sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order" which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We hold that this matter should be treated as a petition for common law writ of certiorari rather than a Rule 3, T.R.A.P. appeal, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Carol Dickens v. Federal-Mogul Systems Protection, Inc.,
M1999-02264-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond, Judge
The trial court found the plaintiff had suffered a twenty percent vocational disability to the body as a whole and that she was entitled to receive temporary total disability payments from August 27, 1997, through May 11, 1998. The defendant raises as issues the failure of the trial judge to exclude a medical deposition entered into evidence by the plaintiff; the failure of the trial judge to limit the award to two and one-half times the medical impairment rating of five percent; and questions the extent of the temporary total benefits awarded. We affirm the judgment in part and modify the judgment in part.

State of Tennessee v. Parker Odell Doney, Jr.
M2001-01187-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The defendant, Parker Odell Doney, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault and his sentences totaling fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record, we reduce the aggravated assault sentences but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Brian Mayes v. Ronald LeMonte
M2002-00625-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Russ Heldman
In this dog bite case, the trial court awarded a meter reader $5000 in compensatory damages against the dog owner. The dog owner claims on appeal that he was not negligent in handling his dog and that the sitting trial judge was biased and prejudiced against him. We affirm.

Hagan Paul Roberts v. State of Tennessee
E2000-00007-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

Hagan Paul Roberts (herein petitioner) appeals the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The petitioner claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify at the trial. The trial Court found that the petitioner did not inform his trial counsel of these witnesses and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial Court.

Todd Hutcheson v. Irving Materials
M2002-03064-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and negligence alleging that concrete provided by Defendant did not meet specifications. Defendant filed counterclaim for Plaintiff's unpaid bill. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to requests for admissions. Defendant filed motion to have requests deemed admitted, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff took no remedial action until seven months later, after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment that was primarily based on the now disputed admissions. Plaintiff then filed Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02 motion for relief from the admissions. Trial court denied Plaintiff's motion for relief, granted Defendant's summary judgment, awarding damages against Plaintiff, and dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant. This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 36.02, and the trial court's granting of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, rendering judgment in favor of Defendant. We affirm the trial court.

Sheila Goodner and Amy Goodner vs. Arthur Sass
E2000-00837-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
The Trial Judge granted defendant's Motion to Dismiss for insufficient process. We reverse and remand.

John Rogers, Sr. vs. Est. of Newton Russell, Larry Holbert, Pers. Rep .
E2000-01054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Hugh E. Delozier
Plaintiff's claim in Probate Court against the estate of his stepfather was denied by the Probate Court because it was not filed timely. The Probate Court advised Plaintiff, who appeared at the hearing pro se, that he should seek counsel if he wished to challenge the ruling of the Probate Court. Although Plaintiff immediately retained counsel, no further action was taken on the matter for eleven months. With new counsel, Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside Order Denying Claim pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 60.02. This Motion was heard on the pleadings, documents in the case file, including the Affidavit of Plaintiff, and arguments of counsel. The Probate Court dismissed the Motion. We affirm the Judgment of the Probate Court.