In the Matter of C.D.B., S.S.B. & S.E.B.
M2000-00232-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: L. Raymond Grimes
This case involves the termination of parental rights. Upon a petition filed by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, the Montgomery County Juvenile Court entered a final decree terminating the Appellant's parental rights.

Allen vs. Allen
M1999-00748-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this divorce case, Husband appeals the trial court's decree as it deals with the division of the marital property (including an award to Wife a part of military retirement), alimony, and child support. We affirm as modified.

Ward vs. Turner
M1999-00719-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
This appeal arises out of a custody dispute between maternal and paternal grandparents. The issue of custody arose after the children's parents were killed in an automobile accident. The Overton County Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court and awarded custody to the maternal grandparents.

Bryant vs. Bryant
M1999-01280-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Petitioners filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father and for adoption of two minor children based on abandonment by the father. On the first appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's order denying termination of parental rights and remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children. The trial court found that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children and granted the adoption. Father has appealed.

TN Medical Association, et al vs. TN Board of Dentistry, et al
M1999-02279-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This is an appeal of an administrative decision involving the Tennessee Dental Practice Act. A licensed dentist petitioned the Tennessee Board of Dentistry to declare that he had the right under his dental license to perform various cosmetic procedures involving the face and neck, such as face lifts and nose jobs. The petition was granted and the Board of Dentistry issued a declaratory order that the petitioning dentist could perform such cosmetic procedures. The Appellees, including the Tennessee Medical Association, petitioned the Chancery Court to review the Board of Dentistry's decision. The Chancery Court reversed the Board of Dentistry's decision, finding that the Board had improperly expanded the practice of dentistry beyond what the legislature intended and that its decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. On appeal, we affirm, finding that the Board's decision was contrary to the Dental Practice Act.

Neely vs. McDonald
M2000-00099-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
This appeal involves a negligence claim asserted against two members of the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department. The Davidson County Circuit Court dismissed the case on the grounds the action was precluded by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

Antonio Sweatt vs. Fred Raney
W1999-02458-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.

Jeffrey Lynn Cravens vs. State
E1999-00385-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

Zurich-American Insurance Company v. Claudia Mosley
M1998-00886-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Carol L. Mccoy, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This worker's compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Randall Lloyd appeals an award of 25 percent to the body as a whole as inadequate. We agree and modify the award.

Linda Harris v. American Bread Company
M1998-00611-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
This case is before the Court upon motion for review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann._ 50-6-225(e)(5)(B), the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, and the Panel's Memorandum Opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated herein by reference;

Leyon Odell Beach v. Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc.
M1999-00416-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
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 findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the plaintiff contends the trial judge erred in finding that he was not a covered employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. As discussed herein, the panel has concluded the claimant was a gratuitous worker and that the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the chancery court AFFIRMED LOSER, SP.. J. delivered the opinion of the panel, in which DROWOTA, J. and GAYDEN, Sp. J. Joseph M. Dalton, Jr. and Catherine S. Hughes, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Leyon Odell Beach.. Terry L. Hill, Manier & Herod, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Schwan's Enterprises, etc. et al . OPINION The claimant or appellant, Beach, is thirty years old and a high school graduate with two years of college. He has worked in the insurance business and in the music business, but apparently has no particular vocational training. In May of 1998, he was interviewed for a sales position at Schwan's Enterprises, a home delivery service. At the conclusion of the interview, he was told that the position would be offered to him if he successfully completed "ride day", the next step in the application process. Ride day was scheduled to occur on May 27, 1998. On that day, the claimant accompanied a salesperson and observed the interaction

Howse vs. Johnson
M1998-00513-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Brake vs. Brake
M1997-00007-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

Rebound Care Corp. vs. Universal Constructors
M1999-00868-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

State vs. Antonio Jackson
W1999-00712-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.
The defendant appeals his convictions for facilitation of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence relative to accomplice testimony, the competency of a witness, the exhibition of the victim's skull to the jury, and the failure to merge the convictions for due process and double jeopardy purposes. We affirm the trial court.

Lee Warehouse LP by Warehouses, Inc. vs. Jepco Construction
E1999-01944-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III

U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty vs. Waco Contractors, Inc.
E2000-00159-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

Neil Price v. Toni Price
M1998-00840-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

This case involves the dissolution of a seventeen-year long marriage. The parties have raised on appeal issues involving spousal support, child support, their partial marital dissolution agreement and attorney fees. Upon a review of the record and the relevant law, we find that the decision of the trial court should be reversed in part and affirmed in part.

State Auto Ins. Companies vs. Gordon Construction, Inc., et al
M1999-00785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This is an insurance coverage case. A commercial general liability insurer filed suit for declaratory judgment to determine whether it had a duty to defend the insured, a construction company. The underlying lawsuit against the insured alleged breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties in failing to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the insurance policy did not require it to defend against the suit. The insured appeals, and we affirm, finding that there was no "occurrence" under the terms of the insurance policy.

Dept. of Transportation vs. Sunset Marine and Resort
M1999-00880-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
This appeal arises out of what can loosely be defined as a condemnation case. The State of Tennessee, acting through the Department of Transportation, received an easement from the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of building a bridge across Dale Hollow Lake in Pickett County, Tennessee. The bridge was to be built across land owned by the United States and operated by the Defendants as a resort and marina under a lease for commercial purposes. The State filed a Petition for Condemnation against the leaseholder in the Pickett County Circuit Court seeking to take the land under its power of eminent domain. The trial court determined that the State could not take the land based on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. However, the State had already begun work on the project, and, ultimately, the bridge was completed. The court held a trial to determine the damages which the leaseholder had suffered as a result of the bridge being placed across the leasehold. The trial court granted a partial directed verdict and awarded the leaseholder $287,115. The trial court also awarded the leaseholder $100,000 as attorneys' fees in lieu of injunctive relief. The State appeals from the partial directed verdict and the award of attorneys' fees.

State vs. John Bradley Lowery
E1998-00034-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State of Tennessee v. Lamont Lee Harper
M1999-00451-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The defendant was convicted by a Sumner County jury of aggravated assault and attempted first degree murder. The defendant alleges on appeal that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt of aggravated assault; 2) the trial court erred in allowing victim Kevin Wynn to testify that he had previously seen the defendant with a gun; and 3) the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after testimony that the drug task force kicked in the defendant’s door on a prior occasion, and after testimony that the defendant had previously been arrested. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. AAA Aaron's Action Agency Bail Bonds, Inc.
M1999-01915-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley

The appellant bail bond company appeals the en banc order of the Criminal Courts of Davidson County which refused to reinstate its authority to write bail bonds. We conclude the appellant was not given proper notice of grounds relied upon for the refusal to reinstate its authority to write bonds, and the Criminal Courts of Davidson County erroneously refused to reinstate appellant's authority to write bail bonds based upon its alleged failure to notify a defendant of an arraignment date. Accordingly, the judgment refusing to reinstate appellant's ability to write bail bonds is reversed.

Dan Alexander vs. Jay Armentrout, Jr. and Patricia Ruth Armentrout
E1998-00136-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lewis W. May

This appeal arises from a dispute between brothers-in-law over the sale of a partnership interest in a family dairy business. After reaching an oral  agreement regarding the price of the interest to be sold, the buyer tendered $50,000 of the purchase price to the seller and later  presented a promissory note evidencing an obligation for the $61,000 balance of the sale. The seller’s home subsequently burned and the note was destroyed.  A dispute arose between the parties as to the validity of the note and the existence of an agreement. The seller  contends that the note handed to him by the buyer does not contain the true terms of the contract. He argues that his agreement was with the buyers and not with the buyer's corporation. The buyer contends that his corporation is liable on the note and not him personally. A jury found that the note was not accepted by the seller and rendered judgment against the buyer and his wife, rather than against the corporation. In reviewing the trial court’s denial of the buyer’s motion for a directed verdict, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s findings and held that the seller accepted the promissory note and was estopped from denying his acceptance. Accordingly, the intermediate court reversed the judgment against the buyer and his wife, finding them not to be personally liable on the promissory note. After a close review of the record, we have concluded that while the Court of Appeals correctly  reversed the judgment against the buyer’s wife, it erred by reversing the jury’s verdict with respect to the buyer personally. We therefore reinstate the jury’s verdict and judgment against the buyer.

Gary Carr v. State of Tennessee
W1999-01242-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

Petitioner appeals as of right from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal Petitioner challenges only the post-conviction court’s determination that his trial counsel was effective when Petitioner entered into a guilty plea. After a de novo review, we conclude that petitioner has not established either prong of the Strickland test, and we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.