American Indemnity vs. Foy Trailer
W2000-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
American Indemnity Company sought a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability (CGL) policy did not cover claims made by Ms. Johnson against the Appellants in her federal court complaint and that it did not have a duty to defend Appellants in the federal action. The Chancery Court for Shelby County held that there was no coverage and no duty to defend. Appellants appealed. We affirm.

Matter of Fannie Barnhill
W2000-00289-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
Will contestant voluntarily dismissed chancery court proceeding to contest will. Subsequently, contestant filed another notice to contest the will. The trial court, on motion, dismissed the proceeding as barred, because it had previously been dismissed, and such an action is within an exception to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 41.01 (1). Contestant has appealed.

Denley Rentals vs. Howard Etheridge
W2000-00189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This case involves the assignability of a chose in action. The plaintiffs are two related limited liability companies and the person who was the owner/manager of both. The owner/manager contracted to purchase real property from the defendants, and later assigned his interest under the contract to one of the limited liability companies. The first limited liability company closed the transaction with the defendants. After the transaction was closed, the first company discovered a landfill located on the property that had not been disclosed by the defendants. The first company then transferred the property to the second limited liability company for de minimis consideration. The owner/manager of both companies made a "mental assignment" of the chose in action from the first company to the second company, and the second company incurred the cost of clearing the landfill debris. The plaintiffs jointly sued the defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that there was not a valid assignment of the chose in action, that the first company was precluded from recovery because it suffered no damages, and that the second company was precluded from recovery because it took the property with full knowledge of the defect. On appeal, we reverse and remand, finding that the chose in action was validly assigned.

The Pointe vs. Lake Mgmt.
W2000-00211-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action to determine rights in a privately-owned lake. Plaintiffs purchased land adjacent to the artificially-created lake for the purpose of developing residential lots. Subsequent to the sale of the property, Plaintiffs' grantor conveyed title to the lake to Defendant. Defendant claims it has the right to control use of the lake and that Plaintiffs have no right to lake access without Defendant's permission. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the lake is unnavigable, and no riparian rights can therefore flow to adjoining landowners; (2) the Defendant, as owner of the land subjacent to the lake, has a right to the unimpeded use and control of the property; and (3) any use of the lake by the adjoining property owners without Defendant's consent would constitute a trespass. Plaintiffs appeal.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee

Scott Yother vs. Laine Yother
E2000-01046-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
In this post-divorce case, Elaine Hines Yother ("Mother") appeals from an order awarding primary residential custody of the parties' minor child, Avery Raechelle Yother (DOB: April 2, 1995), to the child's father, Scott Christopher Yother ("Father"). Mother argues (1) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the custodial arrangement decreed in the parties' divorce judgment; and, alternatively, (2) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment changing custody. Because we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issue of custody, we reverse the judgment below.

Edward F. Curtis vs. Stephen T. Nash, et al
E1999-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This appeal arises in the Knox County Circuit Court from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. Edward F. Curtis appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Curtis and his surety.

E1999-01909-R3-CV
E1999-01909-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Jerry Wayne Terry vs. Donna Brazier Terry
E2000-00825-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Steven C. Douglas
This appeal from the Cumberland County Probate and Family Court concerns whether the Trial Court erred in making an equitable division of the marital estate of Jerry Wayne Terry, the Appellant, and Donna Brazier Terry, the Appellee. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Terry and his surety.

Whittington-Barrett vs. Johnson
E2000-00700-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
This is a suit between two inmates of the State of Tennessee. The Plaintiff, a transsexual, seeks a declaratory judgment "to establish the rights of the Plaintiff," and damages, attorney fees and costs against the Defendant because of sexual harassment. The cause of action alleges violation of various sections of the Constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States of America and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Trial Judge dismissed the complaint because there was "no claim of state action in Plaintiff's complaint, nor is this an employer/employee situation." We affirm.

Kenneth L. Storey vs. David J. Poss
E1999-00192-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Plaintiff/Appellant is an inmate at West Tennessee High Security Prison in Hennig, Tennessee, pursuant to a conviction for aggravated rape. Defendant, a Tennessee attorney, was appointed by the General Sessions Court to represent Plaintiff at a preliminary hearing on that charge. After that hearing, Plaintiff was bound over to the grand jury for trial. Plaintiff asked the Criminal Court to dismiss Defendant as his counsel and to appoint another attorney. The Criminal Court granted Plaintiff's request and appointed new counsel on April 18, 1996. On August 29, 1997, Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice action against Defendant in Chancery Court asking for damages of $730,000. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the one-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims bars Plaintiff's claim. The Chancellor granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. We affirm.

State vs. Scarlett Rose Bender
M2000-1070-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
The Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to possessing with the intent to sell or deliver over one hundred pounds of marijuana, which is a Class B felony. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced the Defendant to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that she should have been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender and that she should have been allowed to serve her sentence on probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James C. Barbra v. Clarendon National Insurance
E1999-00232-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Peoples, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Judge
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 appellant, Clarendon National Insurance Company, is the workers' compensation insurance carrier for United Marine Corporation (hereafter "the employer"). The issue is whether an award of 62-1/2 percent partial disability to the body as a whole is excessive in light of the medical and vocational testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Warner Powell and Charlie Stokes
M1999-00661-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
This is an appeal as of right by the State of Tennessee, which argues that the trial court erred by suppressing the evidence obtained against the Defendants pursuant to a search warrant. The State asserts that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the search warrant was invalid because the agent who provided the information in the affidavit establishing probable cause to search did not have the authority to execute the warrant or arrest the Defendants. In response, the Defendants assert that the State's notice of appeal was not timely filed, and they argue that the evidence was properly suppressed because the agent did not have the authority to obtain or execute the search warrant and because the affidavit did not establish the veracity of the confidential informant. We conclude that the State's notice of appeal was not timely filed, but we will consider the appeal in the interest of justice. We further conclude that the search warrant was valid; thus the trial court erred by suppressing the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant. Accordingly, the trial court's order suppressing the evidence is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

State vs. Roderick Johnson
M1999-00605-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
A Davidson County jury convicted defendant of second degree murder. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the jury based his conviction. Our review of the record reflects sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs.Robert Lewis Herrin
M1999-00856-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The appellant, Robert Lewis Herrin, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to one count of theft of property worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but 120 days of the appellant's sentence and granting him supervised probation for a term of ten years. As a special condition of probation, the trial court prohibited the appellant from engaging in "any type [of] construction business or solicitation for business." In this appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing this special condition of probation. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

State vs. Bobbie Joe Rollins
M1999-02457-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The defendant was convicted by a Marshall County jury of reckless aggravated assault and sentenced by the trial court to ten years imprisonment as a Range III offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant claims the conflict between the trial court's erroneous written jury instruction requiring proof of venue in "Lincoln County," and the oral instruction requiring proof of venue in "Marshall County," requires reversal. After a through review of the record, we conclude that the issue has been waived. Furthermore, regardless of waiver, any error in the written jury instruction was clearly harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Richard C. Silk
M1999-02526-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Richard C. Silk, was convicted by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of resisting arrest, a class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to six (6) months incarceration in the Rutherford County Jail, assigning a service percentage of seventy-five percent (75%). The appellant now presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction of resisting arrest; (2) whether the trial court erred in sustaining certain objections by the State to the appellant's testimony concerning a statement made to him by an arresting officer; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Connie Easterly
M2000-00077-CCA-R10-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Robert Steven Bebb

State vs. Bernard Jerome Jones
M2000-00018-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt; (2) the trial court erred by ruling that if defendant testified, the state could impeach his credibility by introducing defendant's prior drug convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to 16 years incarceration. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. William Lewis Houston
M1999-01430-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant was convicted by a Giles County jury of eight drug offenses and one count of aggravated assault. He received an effective sentence of seventy-two years. In this appeal, the defendant makes the following allegations: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed plain error by consolidating all nine indictments for trial; (3) the process of selecting the jury venire was unconstitutional; (4) the trial court improperly limited the defendant's cross-examination of the undercover agent; (5) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence transcripts of certain tape recorded conversations and failed to properly instruct the jury concerning the transcripts; and (6) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. We conclude the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant and reduce the sentences to an effective term of forty-six years. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects.

State vs. Lori A. Little
M1999-0858-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
The Defendant, Lori A. Little, was convicted of two counts of forgery, both Class E felonies. In this appeal as of right, she argues (1) that the trial court improperly denied her the court's subpoena power prior to trial; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (3) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding NationsBank's obligations under the Uniform Commercial Code to reimburse customers for forgeries paid out of customers' accounts; (4) that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding his bias; (5) that the jury was improperly tainted or biased by contact between a witness and a juror who were acquaintances; and (6) that the trial court intimidated the Defendant in a jury-out hearing during her direct examination at trial. We find no reversible error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Taylor Mehrhoff Co.
W1999-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
Plaintiffs, Landowners, sued adjoining landowners, seeking a judgment determining the location of a disputed boundary line. The trial court found that Defendants had: (1) established record title to the disputed property; (2) established the boundary line in recorded deeds and trust deeds, and by the conduct, implied agreement, acquiescence and recognition of adjoining property owners; and (3) proven title by adverse possession of the disputed property. Plaintiffs-Landowners have appealed.

Trau-Med vs. Allstate
W1999-01524-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
Plaintiff medical clinic filed a complaint against an insurance company and several of its employees alleging, inter alia, that the defendants tortiously interfered with their business relationship, that the attorneys supplied by the insurance company to represent its insured were guilty of abuse of process and that the defendants conspired to destroy plaintiff's reputation in business. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has appealed.

Meredith Warren vs. John Warren
W1999-02108-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
In this child custody case, the Appellant and the Appellee agreed to joint custody of their child with the Appellee being the primary custodial parent. After learning of the Appellee's plans to move out of state with the child, the Appellant filed a Petition for Opposition of Minor Child's Move from the State of Tennessee and/or Petition for Change of Custody. The trial court granted temporary custody to the Appellant pending a reevaluation of the matter. After a hearing, the trial court ordered joint custody of the child to the Appellant and the Appellee and decreed that the child live primarily with the Appellee out of state.