State vs. David E. Hancock
03C01-9808-CR-00278
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Jody Maynard Falk v. Saturn Corp.
01S01-9805-CH-00105
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William B. Cain

Timothy Gene Green v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance & Fleetwood
01S01-9806-CV-00113
Authoring Judge: Henry Denmark Bell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Bobb Y Capers

Roger Lee Dailey v. Ez Loader Boat Trailers, et al
01S01-9805-CH-00101
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Stewart

Ricky Myers v. Carrier Corporation
01S01-9810-CH-00183
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jefferey Stewart

Monika Pelis v. Precision Printing & Packaging
01S01-9809-CH-00160
Authoring Judge: Henry Denmark Bell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert W. Wedemeyer

John Darren Welker v. Bridgestone/Firestone
01S01-9810-CH-00192
Authoring Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew

Allen Dale Jarvis v. Nissan Motor Mfg Corp.
01S01-9810-CH-00186
Authoring Judge: Henry Denmark Bell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James L . Weatherford

James E. Rainey v. Micro Craft, Inc., et al
01S01-9805-CH-00106
Authoring Judge: Henry Denmark Bell, Retired Judge

Betty Jo Reeves v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., et al
01S01-9806-CH-00115
Authoring Judge: Thomas W. Brothers, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Donald P. Harris

State of Tennessee v. Albert Dewaynn Porter - Concurring
02S01-9803-CC-000205
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

We granted this appeal to determine whether the common law "procuring agent defense" has been abolished by statute. We hold that the procuring agent defense was abolished by Tenn. Code Ann. §39-11-203 (e)(2) which expressly states that "[d]efenses available under common law are here by abolished." The trial court appropriately declined to instruct the jury on the procuring agent defense, and the defendant's conviction for selling a controlled substance was supported by the evidence.

State vs. Danny Lynn Porter
03C01-9811-CR-00393
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. David Proffitt
03C01-9901-CR-00026
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

Don Brunetti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Williamson County, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9803-CV-00120
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

This is an appeal of the trial court’s affirmance, in a writ of certiorari action, of a decision of the Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals interpreting and applying provisions of the Williamson County Zoning Ordinance. The Appellant, Mr. Brunetti, is a neighbor of Mr. Brian Sanders, and objects to the operation of two grain bins (sometimes referred to as silos) on Mr. Sanders’s 5-acre parcel in Williamson County, which is zoned “Estate.” The Board of Zoning Appeals interpreted state statute and local  ordinance to allow this “agricultural” use. We affirm.

Joanne Thompson Barrett v. Marilyn Young Hill - Concurring
01A01-9806-CV-00295
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Corlew

This case involves a dispute between neighbors over a sewer line. The Defendant, Marilyn Hill, appeals the trial court’s finding of an easement by  implication in favor of the Plaintiff, Joanne Barrett, across Ms. Hill’s property for the purpose of connecting Ms. Barrett’s property to the city sewer line. We affirm the trial court.

William Jones v. Jeff Reynolds, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction
01A01-9809-CH-00499
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

Plaintiff William Jones appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction in this dispute over the Department’s calculation of Jones’ sentence reduction credits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Electric Controls, et al., v. Ponderosa Fibres of America, et al.
02A01-9712-CH-00304
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr.

Defendant Vanderbilt Industrial Contracting Corporation (VICC) appeals the trial court’s judgments which awarded attorney’s fees to two of VICC’s co-defendants in this lawsuit, Kajima International, Inc., and Titan Contracting and Leasing Company. We reverse the trial court’s judgments based upon our conclusion that the relief awarded exceeds the scope of the relief requested by the parties’ pleadings.

Charles O. Mix and wife, Marilyn V. Mix, and Charles Alan Mix, v. Ray Miller and wife, Cleao Miller, Sandra Miller Scott, and Sherrell Mille Cole v. Ray Miller
02A01-9804-CH-00104
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Walton West

The Mixes and the Millers are owners of adjacent pieces of real property. In this boundary line dispute, the trial court (1) determined the boundary line that divides the parties’ properties, (2) awarded damages to the Millers for certain timber that had been removed from the disputed property by the Mixes, (3) denied the parties’ motions to alter, modify, or amend its judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial, (4) denied the Millers’ motion for discretionary costs, and (5) denied the Mixes’ motion to re-open the proof. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

Catherine Edmundson v. Jimmy C.Grisham, d/b/a Germantown Pest Control, Germantown Termite & Pest Conrol, Inc., et al., - Concurring
02A01-9810-CV-00298
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Karen R. Williams

Defendants Jimmy C. Grisham, d/b/a Germantown Pest Control, Germantown Termite and Pest Control, Inc., and Christopher D. Alexander appeal the trial court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of  Plaintiff/Appellee Catherine Edmundson in the amount of $50,000. We  affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Steven Cobb v. Charles Wilson, et al.
02A01-9811-CV-00308
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

Steven Cobb appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint against Charles Wilson, Evelyn Scallions, and Steve Vaughn. The complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of Cobb’s rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Kevin Kathleen Stacey v. Donald Ray Stacey
02A01-9802-CV-00050
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge F. Lloyd Tatum
Trial Court Judge: Judge D'Army Bailey

Donald Ray Stacey (Husband) appeals an order modifying the terms of the parties’ final decree of divorce. After almost twenty-eight years of marriage, the parties were divorced on July 6, 1995. The final decree was subsequently amended on July 14, 1995, to require Husband to pay attorney’s fees to Kevin Kathleen Stacey (Wife). Three children were born during the course of the marriage, but only one child, Zachary, was still a minor at the time of the couple’s divorce. Pursuant to the Amended Final Decree of Divorce (amended final decree), Wife was granted sole custody of the minor child with Husband having reasonable visitation. Husband was ordered to pay $1,300.00 in child support per month plus the Child Support Guidelines amount of 21% of his annual bonus up to a total gross income of $9,900.00 (bonus and base salary).

State of Tennessee vs. Mark M. Gesner
01C01-9902-CC-00033
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Ruth Stanford
02C01-9812-CC-00365
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, JR.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit Lafon

The defendant, Ruth Stanford, stands convicted of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (1991) (amended 1996, 1997) (proscriptive statute); § 39-17-410 (1991) (amended 1996) (scheduled drugs). Stanford received her convictions at a jury trial in the Henderson County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to serve concurrent two-year sentences1 for these Class D felonies, with the first 90 days to be served in the county facility and the balance to be served on probation. In this  appeal, she raises three issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the
witness who purchased drugs from Stanford without qualifying
the basis of knowledge and reliability of the witness's
testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance of the
hearing on the motion for new trial and ruling on the merits of
the motion.
3. Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law, we find no
reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. James Tyrone Harbison
03C01-9808-CR-00271
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Jason Burns
01C01-9809-CC-00371
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

A jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated child abuse and neglect, and he received an eighteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He now appeals, raising the following issues:

I. Whether the convicting evidence is sufficient;
II. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a Department of Child Services investigator that the victim cried at the mention of the defendant’s name;
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statements to the police on the basis his mental incompetence prevented a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights; and
IV. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing educators to testify about the defendant’s mental abilities unless the defendant first testified.

Finding no merit to the defendant’s arguments, we affirm his conviction.