Dpt. Human Services vs. Whaley
03A01-9809-JV-00272

O'Bryant vs. Reeder Chevrolet
03A01-9810-CV-00325

Neas vs. Kerns
03A01-9812-CH-00386

McNair vs. Smith
03A01-9804-CH-00122

Norris vs. Gounaris
03A01-9807-CH-00238

State vs. Michael Elvis Green
W2001-00455-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
A Hardeman County jury found the defendant guilty of rape. Four issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant a continuance; (3) whether evidence of the defendant's escape from jail was improperly admitted; and (4) whether the trial court should have charged the jury as to sexual battery, statutory rape, and Class B misdemeanor assault as lesser-included offenses of rape. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Patricia Anne Pehlman v. Gregory Lawrence Pehlman and Sobieski and Associates
3A01-9809-CV-00311
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Swann

In this action Patricia Anne Pehlman essentially seeks a declaration that marital property awarded to her in a divorce is not subject to a lien in favor of the intervenor.

Essie M. Butler v. Emerson Motor Co .
02S01-9805-CH-00045
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. George E. Ellis,
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). The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to show she was entitled to compensation because of an alleged back injury.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The facts in this case are reasonably simple. The plaintiff, age 49, had been working for the defendant for 25 years. Several years prior to 1995 she injured her back at work. This injury is more historical than significant in the case before us. In January 1995, the plaintiff was working at a lathe, putting machine parts on the lathe and turning them. She began to experience pain in her back. She testified this was caused by having to twist her body side to side or back and forth in doing the work. Ultimately, the plaintiff was seen by several doctors and had several diagnostic tests and various treatments done. The most significant treatment was done by Dr. Dan Spengler, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed the plaintiff as having instability of motion at the L4-5 section of her spine with some pinching of the nerve. Dr. Spengler was of the opinion that the cause of this problem was a degenerative process in a person of the plaintiff's age. He was of the opinion the plaintiff's work did not cause the problem. 1 The plaintiff also sued for carpal tunnel syndrome and was found to be entitled to compensation. That matter is not raised in this appeal. 2

State vs. Phillip Todd Swords
03C01-9807-CR-00239

State vs. Sharon Marie Shell
03C01-9803-CR-00119
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil

State vs. Anthony Bonam
02C01-9804-CR-00109

State vs. Jamell Richmond
02C01-9806-CR-00198
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. John Greer
02C01-9806-CR-00167

Janice Leslie vs. Charles/Patricia Caldwell
02A01-9807-CV-00179
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

Elipidio Placencia vs. Lauren Placencia
02A01-9803-CV-00065
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

State vs. Bobby Dale Franklin, Sr.
03C01-9804-CR-00129
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Conister Trust v. Boating Corp. of America & Villas-Afloat
M1998-00949-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
The buyer of three boats that were to be built pursuant to specific instructions defaulted on payment for the second and third boats by failing to pay the entire purchase price of the boats. The seller resold the two boats and recovered its damages caused by the buyer's breach. A creditor of the buyer, who furnished funds for the purchase of the first two boats, sought the excess proceeds from the sale of the second boat asserting that it had an unperfected security interest. Because the buyer did not attain rights in the collateral sufficient to meet the requirements for attachment of a security interest, the creditor is not entitled to distribution of the proceeds under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Instead, the rights of the buyer and seller are governed by Article 2. The creditor was entitled to assert the buyer's right to restitution of partial payments, and the seller was entitled to recover its damages from the resale of the two boats. The seller also had a right of setoff which it exercised to recover losses on the third boat from moneys realized in the sale of the second boat. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185

State vs. Crutcher
01S01-9804-CR-00081

State vs. Harris
02S01-9806-CC-00053

State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
02S01-9806-CC-00053
Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

State vs. Small
03S01-9804-CR-00038

Lovell Lightner vs. State
03C01-9808-CR-00277