State vs. James Marion
02C01-9605-CR-00158
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

01C01-9606-CC-00257
01C01-9606-CC-00257

01C01-9607-CC-00289
01C01-9607-CC-00289

01C01-9507-CC-00219
01C01-9507-CC-00219

01C01-9508-CR-00264
01C01-9508-CR-00264

01C01-9401-CC-00017
01C01-9401-CC-00017
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

01C01-9401-CC-00025
01C01-9401-CC-00025
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

01C01-9511-CC-00378
01C01-9511-CC-00378
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin

01C01-9601-CR-00041
01C01-9601-CR-00041

01C01-9603-CR-00084
01C01-9603-CR-00084

01C01-9605-CR-00215
01C01-9605-CR-00215
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

01C01-9605-CR-00191
01C01-9605-CR-00191
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

01C01-9605-CR-00203
01C01-9605-CR-00203
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Brandy Thatcher, b/n/f vs. Bobby Wyatt, et al
02A01-9605-CH-00114
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

Georgia Keys vs. Memphis Carwash, Inc.
02A01-9605-CV-00113
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

State vs. Johnny Smith
02C01-9602-CR-00061
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Mario Gutierrez
02C01-9502-CC-00043

Portland Utilities Construction v. Chase Creek
M2002-02886-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
A utilities contractor sued a subdivision developer for payment for work it performed on the subdivision's infrastructure. The court found that the developer was obligated to honor its contract by paying for work with a value of $313,829. The court also found that the developer was entitled to an offset of $55,955 for damages resulting from defects in the contractor's performance. The developer argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously declined to grant it additional offsets. We affirm the trial court.

Burgess & Carter vs. Mead Johnson
01A01-9609-CV-00436
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Nance vs. Nance
01A01-9611-CV-00515
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Estate of Edward P. Russell, Deceased
01A01-9611-PB-00516
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
Tracy Moore, B/N/F/ Shirley Moore vs. James Prescott, II 02A01-9609-CV-00227 View

Gentry vs. Gentry
01A01-9611-CH-00512
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

03C01-9605-CC-00190
03C01-9605-CC-00190
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

State vs. Miller
03C01-9608-CR-00300
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Clarence Wayne Dunn v. Sequatchie Concrete Services, et al.
01S01-9606-CV-00121
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 in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant is seeking review of the findings of the trial court with respect to the following issues: (1) Whether the employee's claim against it is barred by Tenn Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a one-year statute of limitations1; (2) Whether the claim should be disallowed for the employee's failure to give timely written notice of his claim, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-21; (3) Whether the appellee was an employee of the RDF at the time of the injury; (4) Whether the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive; and (5) Whether the trial judge abused his discretion by commuting permanent partial disability benefits to a single lump sum. The employee contends the appeal is frivolous. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Dunn, is thirty-eight years old and has an eighth grade education. He has a commercial driver's license and has worked as a truck driver for some ten years. He gradually developed a ruptured disk in his lower back while driving a truck owned by the employer, RDF Transportation, Inc. After back surgery, he returned briefly to work for the appellant but resigned because the work exceeded his medical limitations. As to issues (1) through (4), this appeal turns on factual determinations. Appellate review is therefore de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 225(e)(2). This tribunal is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.