Mary Ann Umstot v. Edward Shirer Umstot
02A01-9701-CV-00008
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Karen R. Williams

This is a divorce case. Edward Shirer Umstot (Husband) appeals the order of the trial court awarding a divorce, alimony in solido, and child support to Mary Ann Umstot (Wife). 1 At the time of the divorce, one of the children was eighteen years old and the other child was fifteen years old. 2 Wife’s expert, who valued the plan, testified that a defined benefit plan is a plan in which a benefit is accumulated during one’s working years or tenure with a particular employer that will ultimately be paid out upon retirement or the attainment of so many years of service or a certain age. 3 The trial court accepted the lower value because the parties testified that the property occasionally floods. 2 The parties were married on August 16, 1977 and had two children during the marriage.1 At the time of the divorce, Wife was 52 years old, and Husband was 53 years old. Husband is in good health, but Wife was recently diagnosed with malignant melanoma. She testified that she has a 40% chance of living another five years.

Mary Ann Umstot v. Edward Shirer Umstot - Dissenting/Concurring
02A01-9701-CV-00008
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion which concludes that the trial court's award of alimony in solido was excessive. As noted by the majority, the trial court's order awarded 58% of the marital estate to the wife and 42% percent of the marital estate to the husband. This court's ruling, in its attempt to achieve “a more equitable division," awards 51% of the marital estate to the wife and 49% percent to the husband.

Ronald Hayes vs. John Doe and Shelter Insurance Company - Concurring
02A01-9610-CV-00251
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

In this automobile accident case, Roland Hayes (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against John Doe (“Doe”) for damages sustained when Plaintiff was forced to drive off the road into a tree in order to avoid a head-on collision with Doe’s vehicle. Plaintiff filed a second suit against Shelter Insurance Company (“Defendant”) for Defendant’s alleged bad faith failure to pay Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim under the insurance contract existing between Plaintiff and Defendant. The trial court later consolidated Plaintiff’s negligence suit against Doe with Plaintiff’s bad faith suit against the Defendant. After the parties stipulated that the Defendant paid Plaintiff $11,262.89 prior to trial and after the jury returned a verdict of $2,337 in  favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Doe, the trial court held that Plaintiff should recover nothing from the Defendant in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff appeals the judgment of the trial court  arguing that the trial court erred in consolidating Plaintiff’s negligence action against Doe with Plaintiff’s bad faith action against the Defendant and in refusing to grant Plaintiff an additur or a new trial. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Myrtle Mae Daly Brown v. Norma Jean Belton Daly
02A01-9611-CH-00275
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor John C. Robertson

This appeal concerns a suit for partition and sale of real property. In June 1989, Myrtle Mae Daly Brown, Willie Myrle Daly Cruse, Mary Elizabeth Daly Wolfe and T. J. Ward filed suit against Norma Jean Belton Daly, Appellee, claiming that they each own an undivided one-fifth interest in property, identified as 700 Reed Hooker Road, as the children and surviving heirs of Earl J. Daly (hereinafter “Father”) who died on August 7, 1966.1 They further asserted that Appellee is the rightful owner of the remaining one-fifth interest as the widow and will beneficiary of Earl W. Daly (hereinafter “Son”), their brother, who died in August 1988. Appellee filed a counter-claim contending that Son solely owned the property at the time of his death and that as the land passed to her under the terms of his will, she is the lawful owner in fee simple. Appellee asserted that Son acquired the entire property either by prescription or by transfer of equitable title from Father to Son based on a contract to purchase. Appellee also relied upon the defense of laches.

State vs. Gary W. Tomlin
01C01-9604-CR-00152
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The Appellant, Gary W. Tomlin, Jr. , appeals the revocation of his probation by the trial court in Sumner County. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence of the Appellant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his probation. The Appellant testified and gave explanations for his failure to comply with the probation conditions. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court made specific findings of fact set forth in court orders, that Appellant had violated the conditions of his probation.

State of Tennessee vs. John Howard Pope
01C01-9605-CC-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge James K. Clayton, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall

The Defendant, John Howard Pope, was convicted of DUI, 1st Offense, following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County. He appeals as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the investigatory stop of him immediately preceding his arrest for DUI. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate if Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased
01S01-9609-CH-00177
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

This will contest case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in sustaining the most recently executed instrument as the testatrix's last will and testament. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

In re: Estate of Carleton Elliott Walton, Deceased, Jeffrey O. Walton, Administrator v. Leslie Young
01S01-9612-PB-00252
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

This case presents for review with the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's denial of a claim of paternity. For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. 

James R. Fruge and Jane Fruge v. John and Jane Doe
02S01-9601-CV-00005
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment denying the plaintiff's claims under the uninsured motorist statute. That decision is reversed, and the case is remanded. 

Mary Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc. and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Division of Worker's Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor
03S01-9512-CH-00137
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Dennis H. Inman

This is an appeal from the decision of the Chancery Court in a worker's compensation case, in which the trial court granted the employee's motion for non-suit and then entered a judgment of no liability for the employer on its counterclaim. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded.

State of Tennessee v. George Lorenzo Cartwright
01C01-9608-CR-00338
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, George Lorenzo Cartwright (defendant), appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court revoking his community corrections sentence and reinstating the sentence previously imposed by the court. The trial court found the defendant had violated the terms of his house arrest, he admitted he had ingested marijuana, and he had been arrested for the possession of cocaine.

William J. Snyder v. Ltg. Lufttechnische Gmb; and HSM Pressen-GmbH
01S01-9607-FD-00143
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Magistrate Denis H. Inman

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,1 this Court has accepted two questions certified to us by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The questions are as follows: 1. Whether products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product proximately caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. 2. If “no,” of what effect is Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 28-108? 3 As explained below, the answer to the first certified question is that products liability defendants in a suit for personal injuries based on allegations of negligence and strict liability in tort may introduce relevant evidence at trial that the plaintiff’s employer’s alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the defendants’ product was the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury may consider all evidence relevant to the actions of the employer with respect to the defendants’ product in assessing whether the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing the elements necessary to recover against the defendants. However, in making that determination, the jury may not assess fault against the employer. Our answer to the first question makes it unnecessary to reach the second one.

Walter A. Dickman v. Meadows Homes, Inc.
01S01-9703-CC-00061
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, Meadows Homes, Inc., contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant was a covered employee and in favor of a finding that he was an independent contractor. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the claimant was an independent contractor. On June 13, 1994, the claimant, Walter Dickman, and Meadows Homes, Inc., entered into the following: CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT I/We Walter Dickman do state that I/We are general contractors who are duly licensed to perform the services for which we are offering to Meadows Homes. Our services are being offered to the general public. As a contractor, I/We provide our own commercial automobile, workmen compensation and liability insurance,and hereby release Meadows Homes from any and all liabilities concerning our contract and any employees and their properties. As a contractor I/We agree to provide all necessary tools, equipment and transportation necessary to complete any services required. As a general contractor I/We affirm that we are responsible to report and pay any local, state or federal taxes which may be due on income from services rendered. The paper writing was dated and signed by the claimant and a representative of Meadows Homes, Inc. Thereafter, Dickman bid on and was awarded work at property owned by Meadows Homes in Jackson County. Then, beginning on June 27, 1994, the parties agreed that he would be compensated on an hourly rather than a per job basis. He would perform the work, then bill Meadows for his time. 2

Charles C. Jones v. Tridon, Inc., et al.
01S01-9703-CV-00057
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert Corlew,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the defendants-appellants contend (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding of an injury by accident, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the claimant's injury was one arising out of the employment, (3) the trial court exceeded its authority under an agreed order, and (4) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of medical and temporary total disability benefits. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of medical and temporary total disability benefits should be reversed and the judgment otherwise affirmed. The claimant, Jones, was an employee of the employer, Tridon, on January 3, 1993, when he suffered a compensable back injury and was provided some medical benefits by the employer's insurer, Royal. He continued to work and, in January of 1994, requested additional benefits, claiming a new injury. He was given a list of approved physicians but chose, without further consulting the employer or its insurer, to see a chiropractor who was not on the list. The trial court found that a compensable injury occurred on January 21, 1994 and awarded the medical expenses for treatment by Dr. McCombs, 36 weeks of temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits based on 15% to the body as a whole. No issue has been raised with respect to the extent of permanent partial disability. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). This panel is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Kay Perryman v. Cosmolab, Inc.
01S01-9703-CH-00069
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lee Russell,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of permanent partial disability benefits and temporary total disability benefits. The employee concedes the award of temporary total disability benefits is excessive, but contends the trial court used an incorrect compensation rate. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award of permanent partial disability benefits should be affirmed and the award of temporary total disability benefits modified. The case is remanded for additional proof as to the correct compensation rate. The employee or claimant, Perryman, is forty years old with a high school education. She has worked for the employer for twenty years. In 1994, she injured her elbow at work. As part of her treatment, she was required to take medication which contained blue and yellow dyes, which were also used in the employer's manufacturing process. She had an allergic reaction to the dyes after taking the medication. As a consequence, she is no longer able to work for the employer. She returned to gainful employment on October 31, 1994, thirteen weeks after the beginning of her inability to work because of the injury and treatment. The proof of permanency consisted of the following from the testimony of Dr. Samuel Rowe Marney, Jr., a board certified specialist in Allergy and Immunology: Q. Dr. Marney, Ms. Perryman now has these allergies. Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether she will have those in the future? A. Based on the usual course of allergies, she's almost certain to carry these allergies the rest of her life. The trial judge awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on forty percent to the body as a whole and temporary total disability benefits for sixty-five weeks. The compensation rate was fixed at $216.22. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of 2

IN RE: Ross
03A01-9703-CH-00099

01A01-9702-CV-00069
01A01-9702-CV-00069

01A01-9610-CV-00491
01A01-9610-CV-00491
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash

01A01-9610-JV-00469
01A01-9610-JV-00469
Trial Court Judge: Andrew J. Shookhoff

01A01-9611-CH-00530
01A01-9611-CH-00530
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt

01A01-9612-CH-00540
01A01-9612-CH-00540
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

01A01-9702-CV-00069
01A01-9702-CV-00069
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Pack vs. State
03C01-9611-CR-00440
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

State vs. Colson
03C01-9612-CR-00465
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State v. Worley
03C01-9608-CR-00322