John Herman Hutchings v. Methodist Hospital of McKenzie, et al.
W1998-00901-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn and Judge Karen R. Williams

This is a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff filed two identical actions only days apart in Shelby County and Carroll County against the same defendants. The plaintiff non-suited and then re-filed the Carroll County action. Amended complaints were filed in both actions seeking to add a defendant. The plaintiff then asked the Shelby County trial court to transfer the action pending in Shelby County to Carroll County for consolidation. The defendant who was added argued that the Shelby County trial court should dismiss the case for improper venue and that the Carroll County trial court should grant his motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The Shelby County trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to transfer to Carroll County and the Carroll County trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The added defendant appealed. We reverse the Carroll County trial court’s denial of summary judgment and its acceptance of the Shelby County case for consolidation and remand to the Carroll County trial court to determine whether the Shelby County amended complaint was intended to supplement the original complaint or to completely replace it, and whether a named Shelby County defendant was still a defendant in the Shelby County suit when the amended complaint was filed, in order to ascertain if venue was proper as to the added defendant.

Martin Paschall v. Henry County Board of Education
W1999-0070-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This is an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff is a white teacher who was disciplined for his role in an altercation with a black teacher. The plaintiff sued the county school board for discrimination, alleging that he was disciplined because of his race, in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The trial court granted the school board’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand, finding that the plaintiff has proffered direct evidence of discriminatory intent.

Sandra Diane Moore, v. Danny Michael Moore
W1998-00379-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor George R. Ellis

This appeal arises from an action for divorce filed by plaintiff-Wife in the Crockett County Chancery Court. Following defendant-Husband’s answer and counter-complaint for divorce, the parties entered into a consent order for support and other relief. The court entered an order granting divorce and approving the parties’ agreement. Subsequently, the court entered an order awarding Wife alimony in futuro and a significant amount of the marital assets. The court also found that stock in a corporation was a marital asset and included the stock in Husband’s award of marital assets. Husband appeals both the award of alimony and the court’s characterization of the corporation stock as a marital asset. Tenn.R.App.P. Rule 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
 

State of Tennessee v. James M. Lane, Jr.
1999-00615-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rebecca J. Stern

James M. Lane, Jr. appeals by permission of the trial and appellate courts. Indicted for two counts of aggravated perjury, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reverse the district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Because the prosecutor relied upon improper grounds for denying diversion, we reverse the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying diversion. We remand to the trial court with instructions that the prosecutor enter into a memorandum of understanding for pretrial diversion with the defendant.

Grandstaff vs. Hawks
M1998-00909-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers

Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls
M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.

Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls
M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.

Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls
M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.

Richardson vs. TDOC
M1999-02796-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Limbaugh vs. Coffee Medical Center
M1999-01181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Beatrice Holiday vs. Shoneys South
W1999-01173-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.

Charles McDonald vs. Dixie White Ishee
W1998-00258-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Miltier, III vs. Miltier (Buhls)
E1999-00887-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley

Steven C. Mohn, et ux vs. Bernard Graff, et al
E1999-01015-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II

D. A. Price vs. P. C. Price
E1999-00102-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

State vs.Robert A. Norris & Lida A. Meador
E1999-00485-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

Ricky Lee Jenkins v. Heather Johnson
M2001-02103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This appeal arises from the lower court's modification of a child custody arrangement. The trial court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and awarded primary residential custody to Father. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

State vs. England
M1997-00254-SC-R11-CO
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Wielgus vs. Dover Industries
M1999-00173-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

Speakman vs. Ada Ferrell Garden Apts.
M1999-00509-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson

State of Tennessee v. Dennis R. England
M1999-00254-SC-R11-CO
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

Chadwell vs. Chadwell
M1999-00675-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

In re: Appalachian School of Law
M2000-00053-SC-BLE-CV

Berryhill vs. Rhodes
W1997-00167-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth A. Turner

Berryhill vs. Rhodes
W1997-00167-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth A. Turner