Kimberly Diane Ramsey vs. Elmer Cole Ramsey
E1999-00577-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
On March 4, 1999, the Plaintiff filed for a divorce. The Defendant was served on March 5, 1999. At the trial court's regular docket sounding held on March 19, 1999, the divorce hearing was set for July 20, 1999. The Defendant filed an answer on April 14, 1999. Neither counsel for the Defendant nor the Defendant appeared at the hearing. After being unable to contact the Defendant's attorney, the trial court heard the evidence and entered an order granting the Plaintiff a divorce, and custody of the child, setting child support, and dividing the marital property. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the order averring he had no notice of the hearing and that Defendant's counsel had other business which kept him away from the hearing. The motion was denied by the trial court. The Defendant appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

State vs. Edward Davis
02C01-9712-CC-00480
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Issac Williams
02C01-9802-CR-00049
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Rodney Ayers
02C01-9805-CR-00149
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Walter Gaines
02C01-9806-CC-00172

State vs. Anthony Holt
02C01-9809-CC-00272

State vs. James Moore
02C01-9511-CC-00337
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

James Michael Pitts vs. State
01C01-9803-CR-00130
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

State vs. Jeffrey Edward Pitts
01C01-9701-CC-00003

State vs.Kenneth Williams
01C01-9801-CR-00046
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

Herron v. Hornady Truck
03S01-9807-CH-00072
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl Henley,
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

Kotouc v. Star Knitwear
03S01-9807-CH-00076
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. How E L L N. P E Op L E S
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. Th e p la in tiff in ju re d h is le ft a rm in a n in d u s tria l a c c id e n t o n A ugus t 4, 1995. He w as t r ea t ed by N ei l H . Spi t al ny, or t hopedi c s ur geon, w ho di agnos ed t he pr obl em as a par t i al bi ceps m uscl e t ear . C on ser vat i ve t r eat m ent w as r ecom m end ed, w hi ch e s sent i al l y i nv ol ved bri ef i m m ob i l i t y o f t he arm . F urt her tre a tm e n t w as in d ic a te d bec aus e t he pl ai nt i f f cont i nued t o com pl ai n of pai n on ro ta tio n of hi s ar m . E xam i nat i ons by ot her s pec i al i s t s convi nce d D r . Spi t al ny t hat th e p la in tiff w a s s u ff e rin g f r om a c om pr es s i on of an ul nar ner ve, fo r th e c o rr e c tio n of w hi ch he per f or m ed a s ur gi ca l r el ea s e on A ugus t 27, 1996. Th e s ur gi ca l pr oce dur e w as onl y pa r t i al l y s ucc essfu l. T h e p la in tiff cont i nued t o ex peri ence p ai n ca u se d by c ont r ac t i ons of m us cl e, w i t h s om e di s com f or t at t rib u ta b l e t o a c er vi ca l pr obl em unr el at ed t o t he A ugus t 4, 1995 pr obl em . He r eached m axi m um m edi ca l i m pr ovem ent on Febr uar y 7, 1997, w i t h a m e d ica l i m p a irm e n t ratin g o f ten p e rc e n t t o h is a rm . Th e C h a n c e ll o r fo u n d th a t t h e p lain ti ff h a d a d is a b ility " w ith in th e m e a n in g of t he w or ker s ' com pens a tio n la w " o f 7 5 p e rc e n t to h is le ft a rm . T h e e m p lo y e r ap p ea l s, in s is tin g th a t th e a w a rd o f 7 .5 tim e s th e im p a irm e n t ra tin g is ex ce ssi v e and is not s uppor t ed by t he pr oof . E m pl oye r al s o com pl ai ns t hat t he C hanc el l or f ound th a t D r. S p ita ln y d id n o t c o rr e c tly in te rp re t th e A M A G u id e lin e s and r el i ed upo n hi s per sonal anal ysi s of t he G u id e lin e s . Our 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 2

West v. Maytag
03S01-9803-CH-00026
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl H. Henley,
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.

State ex rel. Paula Buchanan v. Joseph Buchanan
M1998-00962-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal involves a belated dispute over unpaid child and spousal support. After their divorce, the former spouses twice changed the custody arrangements and support obligation in their 1993 divorce decree without obtaining court approval. In 1998, a private Title IV-D contractor, acting on behalf of the State of Tennessee, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to collect $59,150 in unpaid child support and spousal support from the former husband. The trial court held that the former husband could not, as a matter of law, assert the defenses of laches, estoppel, or waiver against these claims, granted a $51,250 judgment against the former husband, and placed a judgment lien against the former husband's house. While the trial court correctly determined that the former husband could not assert equitable defenses with regard to the child support arrearage, the trial court erred by refusing to permit him to assert equitable defenses against the claim for unpaid spousal support. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment awarding the wife $29,150 for unpaid spousal support and remand the case for further proceedings.

Calvin Easley vs. James Britt
M1998-00971-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Department of Correction stemming from a disciplinary proceeding. After he was reclassified to a higher security status and transferred to another institution, the prisoner filed a petition for writ of common-law certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County claiming that the disciplinary board and the warden had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by finding him guilty of the disciplinary offense of escape. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the prisoner perfected an appeal to this court. While this appeal was pending, the prisoner was released from prison thereby rendering this appeal moot. Accordingly, we vacate the June 12, 1998 order and remand the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss it on the grounds of mootness.

Richard Warmath vs. Roger Payne
02A01-9803-CH-00084
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton

02A01-9803-CV-
02A01-9803-CV-
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.

Nancy Knight vs. Henry Knight
02A01-9804-CH-00094
Trial Court Judge: John Walton West

Estate of Jones Bowden
02A01-9805-PB-00127
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham

William Cuzick vs. Cavat Bass
02A01-9809-CV-00244
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

Parnell Webb vs. Ned/Mary Poynter
02A01-9707-CV-00168
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III

John J. Villanueva, v. Tennessee Department of Correction
01A01-9803-CH-00143
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This appeal involves a state prisoner's challenge to his continued incarceration. The prisoner contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act’s allegedly lesser sentence for the crime of which he was convicted, rather than the life sentence imposed upon him as a habitual offender at the time of his conviction in 1987. The trial court granted the Department's Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the prisoner's petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Randolph vs. Poteet
01A01-9808-JV-00419

Hensley vs. TDOC
01A01-9712-CH-00747
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Thomas Harris vs. State
01C01-9709-CR-00423
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.