Glenn M. Berger v. Lear Seating Corporation
03S01-9708-CV-00102
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Kindall Lawson,
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. 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 findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). In this case, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging that he was entitled to workers' compensation benefits as a result of back injuries which he suffered during his employment in August 1994 and May 1996. The trial court found that the plaintiff timely notified the defendant of these injuries and determined that these injuries arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 1 percent permanent total disability but did not award him certain discretionary costs. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reduce the judgment by the amount of social security benefits attributable to employer contributions under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-27(4)(A). The defendant appeals and raises the following issues: "1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the plaintiff provided adequate notice of an injury as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 21, 5-6-22? 2. Whether the plaintiff's claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-23? 3. Whether the court erred in its award and assessment of benefits in light of the medical and lay testimony at trial? 4. Whether the trial court erred in awarding permanent total disability? 5. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's Motion to Reduce the Judgement [sic] by the amount of social security benefits attributable to employer pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-27 (4)(A)?" The plaintiff raises this single issue on appeal: 2

Timothy R. Powell vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9708-CR-00379
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement

The Defendant, Timothy R. Powell, appeals as of right from the order of the trial court summarily dismissing his second petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Billie Joe Linticum vs. State of Tennessee - Concurring
03C01-9710-CR-00458
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bivel

The petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder in 1975 and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the conviction, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by executive action. Hamilton v. State, 555 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977).

Barbara White as the Administratrix of the Estate of Earl R. White, deceased v. William H. Lawrence, M.D.
02S01-9701-CV-00007
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The Court has considered the Petition for Rehearing filed by the defendant/appellee, and it is the decision of a majority of this Court that the petition is without merit. The Petition for Rehearing is denied.

Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. John P. Roberts
02S01-9712-CH-00109
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

In this legal malpractice action, the defendant, John P. Roberts, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ reversal of summary judgment entered by the trial court in his favor based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The issue for our determination is whether the present action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice actions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104.1 After carefully examining the record before us and considering the relevant authorities, we conclude that the instant suit is time-barred. Accordingly, for the reasons explained hereafter, the decision of the Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant is reversed.

John Kohl & Company P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, a Tennessee General Partnership, and Dan E. Huffstutter
01S01-9711-CV-00255
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiffs, John Kohl & Company P.C., John B. Kohl, III and Helen H. Kohl, Individually, and John B. Kohl, III, Trustee, as Trustee of the John Kohl & Company, P.C. Profit Sharing Plan, (collectively referred to as the “plaintiffs”), appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s finding that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs’ recovery for negligently provided legal advice pertaining to certain business matters. The plaintiffs have also appealed from the denial of legal fees associated with prosecuting this action against the defendant, Dearborn and Ewing, and one of its associates, Dan Huffstutter. The issues before us are: (1) whether certain of the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice actions, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104, and (2) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover legal fees associated with prosecuting this action. For the reasons explained hereafter, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Chrysta Gail Pike
03S01-9712-CR-00147
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Lebowitz

In this capital case, the defendant, Christa Gail Pike, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing on the conviction for first degree murder, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;” and (2) “[t]he murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (6) (1997 Repl.). Finding that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. With respect to the defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, the trial judge imposed a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence.

Karen Lynn Pilcher, and husband Keith A. Pilcher, v. A.L. Moneymaker, Jr., and wife, Roberta Moneymaker
03A01-9710-CV-00482
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.

A. L. Moneymaker, Jr., and his wife Roberta Moneymaker appeal a judgment rendered by the Trial Court against them in the amount of $36,000 as a result of personal injuries sustained by Karen Lynn Pilcher and loss of consortium of her husband, Keith A. Pilcher. The suit arose as a result of a collision occurring on September 3, 1994, about 10:00 a.m., between a female dog named Spec, alleged to be owned by Mr. and Mrs. Moneymaker, and a bicycle being ridden by Mrs. Pilcher on Dutch Valley Road in Anderson County.

Larry G. Relford, v. William DeRochie and Steve LaFon
03A01-9712-CV-00547
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell E. Simmons

Larry G. Relford, an employee of William DeRochie, sued Mr. DeRochie and Steve LaFon, seeking damages for injuries received by him when he fell from a scaffold while framing a personal residence being erected for Mr. LaFon under a contract with Mr. DeRochie, the general contractor. As best we understand the complaint, it is grounded upon two theories-- first, that Mr. LaFon failed to provide a safe place for Mr. Relford to work and, second, that Mr. LaFon was, as contemplated by T.C.A. 50-6-111, a statutory employer and subject to the provisions of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Statute.

Damon Alan Kratochvil a Minor by James L. Coone and Sonja Coone v. Danny Alan Kratochvil
03A01-9712-CH-00536
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor R. Vann Owens

In this adoption case, Danny Alan Kratochvil (respondent) appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights regarding his son, Damon Alan Kratochvil. The biological mother's parental rights were terminated by default judgment, and she is not a party to this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jeremy P. Crye, a Minor by his next friend and Mother, Beverly A. Rogers, and Beverly A. Rogers, Individually v. Lloyd C. Norton and Mary B. Norton
03A01-9804-CV-00142
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harold Wimberly

The plaintiff, Jeremy P. Crye, seeks to impose liability on Mary B. Morton for the act of her son, Lloyd C. Norton, in shooting him. The trial judge granted her motion for summary judgment without enlargement. The plaintiff appeals, and presents for review the issue of whether the proof relevant to the motion established a genuine dispute of a material fact, thus requiring a merit trial.

State of Tennessee vs. Cecil Eugene McGuire
03C01-9705-CC-00191
Authoring Judge: Judge Curwood Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The Sevier County Grand Jury indicted sixteen-year old Cecil Eugene McGuire for aggravated rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary. After a trial, the jury acquitted the defendant of aggravated rape and aggravated burglary but found him guilty of aggravated sexual battery and aggravated criminal trespass, a lesser grade offense of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him to serve eleven years in the custody of the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender for the Class B felony, concurrently with eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the defendant presents the following issues:

1. Whether the indictments are fatally defective and thereby deprive the trial court of jurisdiction in this case.
2. Whether the evidence as a matter of law was insufficient to support the convictions.
3. Whether the trial court improperly credited and weighed the enhancement factors and imposed an excessive sentence.

After a careful review of the record and the applicable law, we find no error warranting reversal of the defendant’s convictions. We affirm the convictions, but for reasons explained below, we modify the felony sentence from eleven years to ten years.

Robbie Ann Stavely Hendrix v. Billy Gene Hendrix
02A01-9712-CH-00303
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

In this divorce action, the Trial Judge granted the wife a divorce, ordered the defenda nt to pay alimon y in the amou nt of $400.00 a mo nth, and ch ild support for one child in the amount of $750.00, and attorney’s fees for the wife in the amount of $1,634.67. He also ordered the husband to pay certain debts of the marriage. On appeal, the husband seeks a reversal of the decree for alimony, payment of the marital debts and attorney’s fees to the wife. He also seeks a reduction in the amount of child support awarded by the Trial Judge.

Philip Rene Julian, v. Beverly Ann Julian
02A01-9709-CV-00229
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge John R. McCarroll, Jr.

In this divorce action, the husband has appealed, raising issues about the value and division of the marital property, as well as an award of attorney’s fees to the wife.

Hadjopoulos vs. Hadjopoulos
03A01-9801-CV-00037

First vs. Cheatham
03A01-9805-CV-00157

Miles vs. Nelson
03A01-9711-CH-00500

Miles vs. Nelson
03A01-9711-CH-00500

Miles vs. Nelson
03A01-9711-CH-00500

Sparks vs. Knoxville
03A01-9803-CV-00092

Knox Co. vs. Perceptics
03A01-9803-CH-00089

Johnson vs. Johnson
01A01-9708-CH-00410
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

Rozanne F. Wright (Folk-Schmidt) vs. Jan H. Schmidt
01A01-9708-CV-00413

George vs. Harlan
01A01-9712-CV-00692
Trial Court Judge: James L. Weatherford

State vs. Joseph Stinnett
01C01-9707-CC-00288
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.