State of Tennessee vs. Cedrick Stampley
02C01-9707-CR-00288
Authoring Judge: Judge John P. Colton
Trial Court Judge: Judge William M. Barker

The appellant, Cedric Stampley, appeals as of right the denial in the Shelby County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed appellant’s pro se petition without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Deborah D. Willis v. Cecil Willis, Jr.
01A01-9804-JV-00175
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge William J. Campbell

This case involves the efforts of the State of Tennessee on relation of Deborah D. Willis, former wife of Cecil Willis, Jr., to obtain the revocation of a surrender executed by him surrendering his three children, Deborah May, Pamela R. and Andrew V. for adoption. The Juvenile Judge, who witnessed the surrenders, later entertained the petition to revoke and ordered the surrenders to be revoked. The respondent, Cecil Willis, Jr., has appealed to this Court, presenting the following issue: I. Whether a Trial Court has authority to revoke a “surrender of Child” by the natural father directly to the natural mother and stepfather almost four (4) years after its execution. Furthermore, whether a surrender simply becomes void after the passing of 120 days when an adoption has not yet occurred.

Melissa Cooper v. Xerox Corporation
02S01-9710-CH-00091
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Floyd Peete,
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. 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 findings, 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 court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court awarded the plaintiff ten percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, half of certain medical expenses, and discretionary costs. The defendant appeals and raises the following issues for our review: I. Whether or not the preponderance of the evidence supports the Trial Court's finding that the Plaintiff sustained a 1% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of this injury. II. Whether or not the preponderance of the evidence supports the Trial Court's award of _ of the medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the medical expense of chiropractor Joseph Lipkowitz. III. Whether or not the Trial Court abused its discretion in awarding discretionary costs to Plaintiff in the above matter. We find that the award of ten percent is contrary to the weight of the evidence and that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and dismissed. Because of this decision, we do not reach the last two issues on appeal.

Deborah Williams v. Tecumseh Products Company
02S01-9702-CV-00012
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel approved the trial court’s award of benefits to Deborah Williams, the plaintiff, who had suffered symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome related to her employment as an assembly-line worker for Tecumseh Products Company, the defendant. At issue are the causation and permanency of the worker’s injuries and the payment of discretionary costs related to the deposition of an examining physician. For the reasons appearing below, we adopt the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the issues of causation and permanency. Although we affirm the award of discretionary costs, we vacate the panel’s order invalidating certain local procedures of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District.

Virginia Lynn Woolsey, v. Douglas Harmon McPherson
02A01-9706-JV-00125
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge A. V. McDowell

Plaintiff Virginia Lynn Woolsey appeals the trial court’s order removing Jennifer McPherson from her custody and placing the child in the custody of Defendant Douglas Harmon McPherson. McPherson appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay the $15,000 fee of the Guardian ad Litem. We affirm in all respects.

State of Tennessee vs. Jacob Meeks
02C01-9709-CC-00360
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge John K. Byers
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Kerry Blackwood

The defendant appeals from the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he sought a delayed appeal from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his trial court conviction for “hindering a secured creditor,” to the Supreme Court.

Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr. - Concurring
02A01-9709-CV-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern with the language on page 10 of that opinion which states that, “[i]n order to be compelling enough to warrant the dramatic remedy of changed custody, the change of circumstances must be such that ‘continuation of the adjudicated custody will substantially harm the child.’” I acknowledge that this language appears in Wall v. Wall, 907 S.W.2d 829, 834 (Tenn. App. 1995), an opinion of the middle section of this court. However, I further note that Wall cited Contreras v. Ward, 831 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. App. 1991). Contreras was a parental relocation case which stated the long recognized rule that “the best interest and welfare of the child must be the primary focus of attention.” Contreras, 831 S.W.2d at 290. The court also cited with approval from Sartoph v. Sartoph, 354 A.2d 467, 473 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976), wherein the Maryland Court of Special Appeals stated that “[t]he custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, the change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not that of the parents.”

Frizzell Construction, Inc., v. Gatlinburg, LLC.
03A01-9805-CH-00161
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Fogarty, Jr.

The facts of this case, as material to this appeal, are relatively simple. The parties entered into a contract for the construction of a hotel in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The contract was a standard 2
Associated General Contractors ConstructionManager contract styled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager." The agreement contains two provisions that are germane to the issues under consideration here.

Kevin R. Wagner and Peggy A. Wagner, v. Tabor Construction, Inc. and John Tabor, D/B/A Tabor Construction Company
03A01-9805-CV-00159
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

The facts of this case are relative (sic) simple. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase a house from the defendant. When the house was complete, excepting some "punch list items" the parties entered into a second contract. By the terms of the second contract, the defendant was to place $5,000.00 in escrow with the monies to be used toward the completion of the "punch list items. Part of the work was compleed on the "punch list" items.

Phyllis Renee Brown, v. Charles Chandler Brown, Sr.
02A01-9709-CV-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge James F. Russell

Charles Chandler Brown, Sr., (Father), appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to modify the custody arrangement previously agreed to by the parties and set forth i their final divorce decree. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the trial court's judgment with certain modifications.

Gary Charles Hill, v. Insurance Company of North America
03S01-9712-CH-00150
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Roger E. Thayer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jeffrey F. Stewart

This workers' 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.

State of Tennessee vs. James Christopher Tatrow
03C01-9707-CR-00299
Authoring Judge: Judge Curwood Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

A jury in Cumberland County Criminal Court convicted the defendant, James Christopher Tatrow, of two counts of felony murder and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping in the deaths of Roger Zammit and John Harry. The defendant was also convicted of two counts of premeditated and deliberate murder of the same victims. The trial court set aside those verdicts, however, as the thirteenth juror. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33 (f). In the sentencing phase, the jury declined to impose the death penalty or life without parole and sentenced the defendant to serve life sentences with the possibility of parole. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve two consecutive life sentences concurrently with sentences of 22 years for the kidnapping convictions. The defendant now challenges the validity of the convictions and the propriety of consecutive sentencing pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Policeman's Benefit Assoc. of Nashvillevs. Nautilus Insurance Co.
M2001-00611-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action against its liability insurance carrier to determine the carrier's duty to defend plaintiff in a federal lawsuit and its obligation to provide indemnity coverage. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, and plaintiff appeals. We vacate and remand.

State vs. Royce Lane
02C01-9604-CC-00133
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

State vs. Michael Love
02C01-9805-CC-00134

Lescarbeau vs. Lescarbeau
03A01-9706-CV-00215

Caruthers vs. Caruthers
03A01-9712-PB-00539

03A01-9712-CH-00535
03A01-9712-CH-00535

Fowler vs. Bowie
03A01-9801-CV-00021

Sanjines vs. Sanjines
03A01-9808-CV-00253

Moore vs. Moore
03A01-9708-CH-00382

Pleasant vs. Repass
03A01-9804-CH-00117

01A01-9711-PB-00656
01A01-9711-PB-00656
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

State vs. Charles Madison Blackman, Jr.
01C01-9708-CC-00335
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State v. Larry Morris
01C01-9708-CC-00322