State vs. Richard Sawyer
01C01-9705-CC-00199
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. Mary Schwartz
01C01-9705-CC-00190

State vs. Pat Bondurant (Death Penalty)
01C01-9606-CC-00236

Jerry Duffey vs. State
01C01-9701-CC-00016
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Clarence Jackson
01C01-9702-CR-00041
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

03C01-9704-CR-00131
03C01-9704-CR-00131
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

James M. Grosch
M1999-00239-CCA-R3-PC

Lorrie Murphy vs. Jessica Chadwell
02A01-9705-CV-00105
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Cynthia Phillips vs. Francis Perot
02A01-9704-CV-00094
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford

Cynthia Phillips vs. Francis Perot
02A01-9704-CV-00094

Harry Luther vs. Billy Compton, et al
02A01-9710-CV-00253
Trial Court Judge: Jr.

State vs. Jerry Mullican
01C01-9607-CC-00282

State vs. Applegate
01C01-9608-CR-00370
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

State vs. Franklin Campbell
01C01-9701-CR-00012

Farrah vs. State
01C01-9712-CC-00573

State vs. Wanda Zaid
01C01-9703-CC-00081
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

State vs. Brian Felts
01C01-9701-CC-00006
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

Dicks vs. State
03C01-9606-CC-00231

Dicks vs. State
03C01-9606-CC-00231
Trial Court Judge: William H. Inman

State vs. Smith
03C01-9705-CR-00180
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller

Rosemary Liszeski v. Athens Furniture Inc.
03S01-9703-CH-00035
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, 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. The trial judge found the plaintiff's husband had died as the result of a heart attack while in the course and scope of his employment and awarded her survivors benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case. Thomas Liszeski, the husband of the plaintiff, suffered a heart attack on August 1, 1995 while working in the furniture factory of the defendant. Mr. Liszeski died as a result of this on August 13, 1995. No one was with Mr. Liszeski when he suffered the heart attack. He was found lying on the floor with a wound to his head. At the time of the event, Mr. Liszeski was 47 years of age. His work consisted of operating a machine known as a router. The employee would lift a piece of wood that weighed less than eight ounces and place it on the machine to be cut. He would then stack the cut pieces into a pile. There is, as is usual in cases of this nature, conflicting evidence amongst witnesses as to facts surrounding the event. These touch not only the condition of the employee before the event but also the circumstances and conditions surrounding his work. The defendant offered testimony from a fellow employee of the deceased that the employee's wife said her husband was not feeling well prior to going to work and that he complained of pain in his chest. There was further testimony from fellow employees who testified the deceased did not look well before going to work and that the deceased said he did not feel well. The plaintiff denied that she had said the deceased was not feeling well prior to going to work. Beyond this, the plaintiff called witnesses who testified they were present when the plaintiff talked to a fellow employee of the deceased and that they did not hear the plaintiff say the deceased was not feeling well. The evidence in this record shows the work being done by the deceased was not strenuous work. The environmental evidence shows the ambient or outside 2

In re: Francis E. Dichtel
01S01-9506-BP-00101

Swafford, M.D., vs. Harris, et. al.
01S01-9612-FD-00248

03S01-9704-CV-00037
03S01-9704-CV-00037

Northland Ins. Co. vs. State
M1998-00307-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
The issue in this case is whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against the State of Tennessee for contribution and indemnity. The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway. The statute, however, does not mention contribution and indemnity suits as part of the Commission's jurisdiction. Because of the principle that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unmistakable, we conclude that the State has not consented to hear contribution and indemnity claims. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the appellant's claim.