Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081

State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053

State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

State vs. Small
03S01-9804-CR-00038

Lovell Lightner vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00277

King vs. State
03S01-9801-CR-00001

Harold David Jones vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9805-CC-00222
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

Petitioner, Harold David Jones, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Robertson County. Previously, he entered a nolo contendere plea to second degree murder and received a Range II sentence of 35 years. The following issues are presented for our review:

1. whether the petition was filed within the applicable statute oflimitations; and

2. whether the nolo contendere plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We find no reversible error and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

Paula H. Chaffin, Manny Formigo, and Brenda Thurman, et al., v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd, A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc., A/K/A Norwegian Cruise Lines, et al.
02A01-9803-CH-00080
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Steven Stafford

Paula Chaffin, Manny Formigo, Brenda Thurman, Brent Mezzacasa, Maria 3 Rodriguez, Robert Kirk, Lloyd Ramer, Jerry Knott, and Mike Freeman (“Plaintiffs”), who were appointed by the trial court as class representatives in this conditionally certified class action, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against four separate cruise line businesses, which included: (1) Norwegian Cruise Line Limited f/k/a Kloster Cruise Limited (“Norwegian”); (2) Carnival Corporation and/or Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Carnival”); (3) Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (“Royal Caribbean”); and (4) Princess Cruise Lines, Inc. (“Princess”). Plaintiffs’ claims were based upon alleged Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations and upon alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based upon forum selection clauses contained in written cruise contracts. Based upon the following, we find that the subject forum selection clauses are neither invalid based upon fraud nor unenforceable based upon unreasonableness. Moreover, we find that the subject forum selection clauses do not contravene a strong Tennessee public policy. Accordingly, we find that the forum selection clauses are enforceable and that the trial court’s dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm.

Luvana Leean Tudors vs. Carl William Bell, Jr., - Concurring
01-A-01-9802-CV-00103
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

This is an appeal of two ten-day sentences for criminal contempt. We find that the procedural requirements for a sentence for criminal contempt have not been satisfied. We, therefore, reverse the lower court’s order.

Remington Investments, Inc., v. Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth Obenauf
01A01-9809-CH-00512
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the trial court domesticating a Connecticut judgment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 26-6-101 et seq. against both defendants. I. The Connecticut Action In September 1990, Connecticut Savings Bank brought suit in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut against Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth H. Obenauf on a promissory note in the amount of $34,000, executed by Ronald S. Obenauf and dated March 27, 1990. Plaintiff alleged that it was the current holder of the promissory note and that Ronald S. Obenauf had failed to make monthly payments in accordance therewith. The bank demanded judgment of the amount of the promissory note together with  nterest and costs. The bank further sought fees and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, asserting that plaintiff had been harmed by the failure of the defendant to make payment on the promissory note.

Doyle Shirt Manufacturing Corporation, v. T. Michael O'Mara, et al.
01A01-9711-CH-00670
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Vernon Neal

This appeal involves the requirement of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.01 that pleadings be signed by an attorney or by a party if that party is not represented by an attorney. Finding that the plaintiff did not comply with Rule 11 within the statutory period of limitations, the Putnam County Chancery Court granted summary judgment to the defendant. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Brenda Kaye Thomas v. Johnny Wayne Thomas
02A01-9711-CH-00292
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford

This appeal involves a petition to modify an award of alimony. Appellant, Johnny Wayne Thomas (Husband), appeals the order of the trial court denying Husband’s petition to modify by deletion an award of alimony in futuro awarded to Appellee, Brenda Kaye Thomas (Wife).

Greg Townshend v. Erin Blanding Bingham
02A01-9801-CV-00019
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge D'Army Bailey

This appeal involves a petition to modify child custody. Respondent-Appellant, Erin Blanding Bingham (Mother), appeals from the order of the trial court granting the petition to modify custody filed by Petitioner-Appellee, Thomas Gregory Townshend (Father).

Estate of Carlisa Toney. a minor, by next friend, parent and guardian, Vernioca M. Toney, Individually, v. Bill Cunningham, Mrs. Bill (Ardia) Cunningham, Percy L. Ward and Mrs. Percy L. (Mary) Ward
02A01-9801-CV-00005
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

In this wrongful death action, the trial court granted a motion to quash process and dismiss complaint filed by Defendants Percy and Mary Ward. Additionally, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Bill and Ardia Cunningham. Plaintiff Veronica Toney appeals the ruling of the trial court regarding the motion to quash process and dismiss complaint as well as the motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re: Estate of J.B. Warren, Deceased
02A01-9806-CH-00156
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor George R. Ellis

Respondent Anita W. Goode LeCornu (Respondent) appeals the trial court’s judgment admitting to probate the will of J. B. Warren, Jr. (Testator). We vacate the trial court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the court erred in ruling that the Testator did not effectively revoke one of the will’s provisions.

Ray Darris Thompson v. Betty Hammond, et al. - Concurring
02A01-9808-CV-00221
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Childers

Plaintiff Ray Darris Thompson appeals the trial court’s final order entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Appellees Betty Hammond, Vernon Brown, June Wesson, Bruce MacDonald, and Christine Bradley.  We reverse the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that the trial court erred in granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment  without considering Thompson’s motion to compel discovery.

Billy Wesson and Diane Wesson v. Woodworks, Inc. v. Larry Cupples, D/B/A Construction Company
02A01-9808-CV-00225
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer

Defendant Woodworks, Inc., appeals the circuit court’s final judgment in the amount
of $8288 which was entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees Billy and Diane Wesson. We reverse
the circuit court’s judgment based upon our conclusion that the court erred in directing a verdict in
favor of Defendant/Appellee Larry Cupples, d/b/a Cupples Construction Company, and we remand
for a new trial.

Myranda Brown, a minor, Candy Brown, a minor, and Sherry Mills, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Myranda Brown and Candy Brown v. Jessica M. Chesor and Lisha D. Oaks
02A01-9806-CV-00174
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

This appeal involves a suit for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiffs-appellants, Myranda Brown (Brown), Candy Brown (Candy) and Sherri Mills (Mills) appeal the judgment on the jury verdict that awarded plaintiff Mills $922.00 in damages and awarded no damages for plaintiffs Myranda and Candy against defendants, Jessica Chessor (Jessica) and Lisha D. Oaks (Oaks).

William Lewis Howell v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9806-CR-00200
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade

The pro se petitioner, William Lewis Howell, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App.

Bechtel Construciton Co. v. Campbell
03S01-9712-CV-00145
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. L. Marie Williams,
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 issue in this case is whether the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court that the employee did not suffer a compensable injury or an aggravation thereof within the purview of the workers' compensation laws. 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 employee initially alleged that she suffered a job-related accident while employed as an apprentice pipe fitter at the TVA Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Hamilton County on May 14, 1996. This theory was essentially abandoned after the proof was closed, and the employee was permitted to amend her counter- complaint by alleging a gradual injury involving cervical and shoulder pain. Ms. Campbell was initially employed in August, 1995. She was laid off in May, 1996, but was on furlough for two months during her brief employment. She testified that on May 14, 1996, while relaxing during a lunch break, pain developed in her left forearm. Three days later she was laid off due to a reduction in force, and applied for and received unemployment benefits, after certifying to her union that she was able to work. On June 6, 1996, she was injured in an automobile accident, and reported to the treating chiropractor that she had neck and shoulder complaints, not job-related. She did not pursue further chiropractic treatment because "it would mess up her compensation claim." 2

Denise Stavropoulos v. Saturn Corporation
01S01-9711-CV-00251
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim T. Hamilton,
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. Denise Stavropoulos (employee), suffered bilateral hand numbness and later severe neck pain with no identifiable precipitating event. Massive cervical disc herniation was diagnosed and corrective surgery was performed. The trial court found the condition to be work-related and awarded 9 percent permanent partial vocational disability, in lump sum, and temporary total disability benefits, set off by group disability benefits which had been paid as of the date of trial. Employee is 42 years old and has a high school education. After 14 years' work as a sewing machine operator and press operator for General Motors in Michigan, she began working for Saturn Corporation (employer) in 1992 as an Inventory Management team member. Her duties included operating a forklift truck with an overhead computer screen and reaching up to the computer to enter data about the work that was being performed. She had been treated by a therapeutic masseuse on two occasions in November 1995, for tension, headaches, and mild thoracic stiffness. On November 15, 1995, the masseuse found tight levator, rhomboid and supraspinous muscles, i.e., the muscles surrounding the shoulder blades and cervical spine. She performed an hour-long "myofacial release technique" to the shoulder blades and cervical spine, with good results.1 The employee first noticed numbness in her hands during the second week of July, 1996, and does not recall any precipitating event. She testified that the 1 Performed to treat inflammation where the muscle is attached to the bone. The Sloane-Dorland Annotated Medical-Legal Dictionary, West Publishing, 1987. 2

State of Tennessee vs. James Robert Fields - Concurring
02C01-9709-CC-00341
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

I agree that the conviction should be affirmed. Assault is not a lesser included or lesser grade offense of statutory rape. I disagree, however, with footnote 3 which suggests that a special request by the defendant for an instruction on a lesser offense would serve to amend the indictment. See State v. Leland Ray Reeves, No. 01C01-9711-CR-00515 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 23, 1999).