Dorothy Ahern vs. Robert Ahern
02A01-9708-CV-00190
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

Margaret Haas vs. Michael Haas
02A01-9709-CV-00241
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

State vs. David Krantz
01C01-9707-CR-00284

Tommy Walker vs. State, Ex Rel, Donal Campbell, etc.
01C01-9707-CR-00297
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Tommy Walker vs. State, Ex Rel, Donal Campbell, etc.
01C01-9707-CR-00297
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Jackie Robinson vs. State
01C01-9711-CR-00525

State vs. Timothy Lane
01C01-9707-CC-00306

State vs. William Jett
01C01-9707-CR-00236
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Re: International Fidelity Insurance
03C01-9610-CR-00360
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

03C01-9701-CR-0007
03C01-9701-CR-0007
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Ellis vs. State
03C01-9711-CR-00493

State vs. Doyal
03C01-9712-CR-00552
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Freeman
03C01-9801-CR-00016

State vs. Bradley
03C01-9707-CR-00302
Trial Court Judge: Mayo L. Mashburn

State vs. Harrill
03C01-9708-CC-00365

State vs. Canter
03C01-9708-CR-00370
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Pierce
03C01-9703-CR-00117
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Pierce
03C01-9703-CR-00117
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. Goins
03C01-9704-CR-00154
Trial Court Judge: Arden L. Hill

M. Davis vs. State
03C01-9705-CR-00170
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz

State vs. Brooks
03C01-9706-CC-00220

Frank Crittenden vs. State of Tennessee
03C01-9707-CC-00315
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Eugene Elben

The appellant, Frank Crittenden, appeals as of right the Morgan County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Ann C. Short v. Charles E. Ferrell in his official capacity as the Administrative Director of the Courts
01S01-9704-OT-00078
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder

This cause comes to us on a common law writ of certiorari to review a fee dispute in a post-conviction proceeding involving an indigent defendant, David McNish. The issue is whether an attorney appointed to review the records in a post-conviction proceeding may exceed the maximum allowable rates for attorneys representing indigent defendants. We hold that: (1) Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 (1996) required an attorney performing services as an "expert" to obtain prior approval for an hourly rate in excess of the hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13; and (2) the trial court should have explicitly set forth the approved "expert" hourly rate in its order if such rate was intended to exceed the normal hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13.

Herbert S. Moncier v. Charles E. Ferrell, in his capacity as the Administrave Director of the Courts
01S01-9704-OT-00079
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder

The defendant, Thomas Dee Huskey, has been charged on four counts of murder, eleven counts of rape, fourteen counts of kidnapping and three counts of robbery. The State filed notice of intention to seek the death penalty. In November of 1992, the petitioner, Herbert S. Moncier, and a second attorney were appointed pursuant to Tenn. R. Evid. 13 to represent Huskey. Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13 § 1 permits appointment of two attorneys for one defendant in capital cases. The petitioner sought additional reimbursement in the trial court for two additional attorneys, for paralegals and for various other expenses. The trial judge entered an order granting reimbursement for two additional attorneys not to exceed $ 10,000.00 and for paralegals at $ 15 per hour not to exceed $ 5,000.00. The order was entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the petitioner's appointment.

Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.
03S01-9712-CV-00138
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Richard R. Vance,
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 issue for review is whether the claim is barred by Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-23, a statute of limitations. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The trial court overruled the employer's pre-trial motion for summary judgment and, after a trial, found that the injury did not manifest itself until March of 1993 and awarded benefits to the injured employee. 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). It is undisputed that the action was commenced on June 23, 1993. The employee or claimant, Valentine, was 5 years old at the time of the trial. She has a ninth grade education and has worked for the employer, Heekin, as a packing machine operator since 1984. In June of 1991, she twisted her neck and arm while pulling cans from the line. She immediately notified a supervisor but he did not complete a work related injury report because there was no visible evidence of injury. Instead, the employer filed a health insurance claim. The next week, Valentine took a vacation, but continued to have neck and arm pain. She went to a medical clinic, where she received pain medication and a soft neck collar. She returned to work following the vacation, but her neck and arm still hurt, so she reported the injury to a plant manager, who attributed the problem to "old age" and refused to complete a work related injury report. Concerned with the financial strain of the copayment requirement of her health insurance coverage, the claimant spoke directly to the secretary who handled workers' compensation claims for the employer. The secretary, in her trial testimony, admitted the claim was mishandled, but testified also that she only designated claims as workers' compensation claims when instructed to do so by a supervisor. 2