03A01-9704-CV-00111
03A01-9704-CV-00111

State vs. Carlos Coman
02C01-9611-CC-00412
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

State vs. Robbie James
01C01-9609-CR-00388

01C01-9612-CC-00517
01C01-9612-CC-00517

01C01-9612-CC-00519
01C01-9612-CC-00519

Holloway vs. Collier, Jr.
01A01-9704-CV-00153
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Holloway vs. Collier, Jr.
01A01-9704-CV-00153
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain

Thomas v. White
01A01-9610-CH-00479
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

Jones vs. Rudolph
01A01-9611-CH-00513
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Gary Mayes vs. State
01C01-9704-CR-00137
Trial Court Judge: Thomas T. Woodall

Wolf vs. The University of TN.
01A01-9611-CH-00514
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender

Fetterolf vs. Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Trial Court Judge: John P. Hudson

State of Tennessee Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Hudson

This is an appeal by respondents/appellants, Stanley Fetterolf and Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, from a decision of the Putnam County Juvenile Court terminating their parental rights. Ms. Ford argues petitioner/appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Human Services (“Department”), filed its petition for termination of parental rights in the wrong court and contends the proper venue was the Overton County Juvenile Court which had handled the initial custody proceedings.1 The pertinent facts are as follows.

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Willie M. Nutt v. Angelica Uniform Group
01S01-9609-CH-00195
Authoring Judge: W. Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William B. Cain
This Workers' Compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Willie M. Nutt, appeals the judgment of the trial court in dismissing her complaint as being barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Willie M. Nutt worked for the defendant, Angelica Uniform Group, from 1982 to 1989 when she quit due to pain in her shoulders and back. She then worked for Tennessee River for several months, but again had to quit due to the physical inability to do her job. In November 1989, she was advised by Dr. Howard Fuchs that her shoulder problems were work- related. With the encouragement of the plant manager, and the assurance of light duty, Ms. Nutt returned to work for Angelica Uniform in July, 199. She was able to handle small parts for a few days, but her shoulder symptoms returned when she was assigned to heavier work. She was terminated because she was unable to perform her job. Plaintiff filed suit on January 28, 1991, and alleged on or about July 31, 199, she became aware she had suffered an injury to her shoulders. The defendant answered and pled the statute of limitations as a defense. After a trial on October 2, 1994, the trial court took the matter under advisement and entered judgment on December 16, 1994, dismissing plaintiff's cause of action. The trial court found: The shoulder problems suffered by Ms. Nutt, however, were long standing problems and were not caused by a work-related injury during her brief period of employment at Angelica's plant in July of 199. The Court further finds that Ms. Nutt was aware of her shoulder problems and aware that those shoulder problems were work related several years before the complaint in this action filed. The statute of limitations applicable to her claims, therefore, expired prior to the filing of this action on January 28, 1991, and Ms. Nutt's action was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. The scope of review of issues of fact is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn. 1989). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference 2

State vs. Nassel Brown
02C01-9606-CR-00187
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. Clifton Epps
02C01-9601-CR-00022

Stat e vs. Michael Moore
02C01-9705-CR-00180
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. David Hassell
02C01-9611-CR-00396
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX