Russell vs. State
03C01-9701-CR-00006
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Watson vs. Ameredes
03A01-9704-CV-00129
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

State vs. Jose Holmes
02C01-9505-CR-00154

State vs. John Knapp
02C01-9608-CR-00282
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

Thurman vs. Thurman
03A01-9707-CH-00261

Oneida vs. Oneida
03A01-9707-CH-00264

03A01-9708-CH-
03A01-9708-CH-

Terri Demilt vs. Methodist Hosp., et al
02A01-9611-CV-00283
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Suzanne Gibson vs. James Prokell
02A01-9701-CH-00006
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
01S01-9711-CH-00242
The ruling listed above is the Order regarding the "Tiny Towns" legislation. The full opinion will be published at a later date.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

State of Tennessee vs. Anthony Noe
01C01-9407-CR-00252
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: TJudge homas H. Shriver

VANDALISM CONVICTION AFFIRMED; FALSE REPORT CONVICTION REVERSED

State of Tennessee v. Brenda Starks
01C01-9611-CR-00481
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge James O. Bond

The appellant, Brenda Starks (defendant), appeals as of right from the judgment of the trial court affirming the sentence, as amended, imposed by the General Sessions Court of Wilson County. After the defendant entered a plea of guilty to passing a worthless check, a Class A misdemeanor, she was sentenced to serve 364 days at 100% in the Wilson County Jail. Her entire sentence was suspended and she was placed on unsupervised probation. The General Sessions Court subsequently revoked the probation, and she appealed to the Criminal Court for Wilson County. The trial court affirmed the judgment of the General Session Court, but amended the judgment. The amended judgment provided for confinement in the Wilson County Jail for 364 days at 75%. In this court, the defendant contends: [T]he sentence she was given by the Criminal Court for Wilson
County, Tennessee, an eleven (11) month, twenty-nine (29) day sentence at seventy-five percent (75%), for the misdemeanor offense of passing a worthless check, T.C.A. 39-14-121, was excessive, in that the Court did not sentence Defendant pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, T.C.A. 40-35-101, et. seq. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the laws applicable to this case, it is the opinion of this court the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and this cause dismissed because the defendant has served the entire sentence prior to the institution of the revocation proceedings in the General Sessions Court.

James Walter Dellinger, v. The Arnold Engineering Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Larry Brinton, Jr., Director of the Second Injury Fund
03S01-9703-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Roger E. Thayer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William R. Holt, Jr.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Napoleon Momon vs. State of Tennessee
03C01-9605-CR-00187
Authoring Judge: Judge Curwood Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

The petitioner, Napoleon Momon, appeals pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted in 1991 of second degree murder in the shooting death of his wife, Jacqueline Daniel Momon, and received a twenty-five-year sentence.1 His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal to this Court. State v. Napoleon Momon, No. 03C01-9205-CR-00174 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Nov. 20, 1992).

Robert W. Bagby, v. Dean Russell Carricco
03A01-9705-CV-00183
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor G. Richard Johnson

In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant made an intentional misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a tract of unimproved real property. Following a bench trial, the court found that the defendant, Dean Russell Carrico (“Carrico”), had fraudulently misrepresented a material fact, resulting in a judgment of $21,911.97 for the plaintiff, Dr. Robert W. Bagby (“Bagby”). The trial court also found that Carrico’s conduct violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, T.C.A. § 47-18-101, et seq. (“the Act”). Carrico appealed, raising three issues that present the following questions for our review:

C. Sam Roberts v. James E. Houston
03A01-9706-CH-00199
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant and his wife, Diane, alleging that defendant “entered into agreement with plaintiff for plaintiff to grade and excavate . . . in order to make said land usable”. Plaintiff further averred that he expended over $29,000.00 for heavy equipment and operators on excavation, and “purchased and installed piping at the cost of $3,604.00, for a total due in the amount of $33,530.09".

TRW Steering Systems Company, v. John D. Snavely
03A01-9706-CH-00216
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Earl H. Henley

This is a suit for declaratory judgment. The petitioner, TRW Koyo Steering Systems Company (“TRW Koyo”), seeks a declaration that a document filed by the defendant, John D. Snavely (“Snavely”), in the Monroe County Register of Deeds’ office is a cloud on its title to real property in Monroe County. The trial court granted TRW Koyo summary judgment, decreeing that the purported lien filed by Snavely “is...of no legal effect and, thus, is lifted and removed from [TRW Koyo’s] title.” Snavely appealed pro se.

John R. Whalen v. Ruben Roberts and Jo E. Roberts - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00246
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Simmons

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on defendants’ premises, the Trial Judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to T.R.C.P. 12.02(6), and plaintiff has appealed.

Super Grip Corporation v. B & D Super Grip, Inc., - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00257
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

In this contract action, the Trial Judge entered judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $50,431.29, and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim which had sought damages for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the distributorship agreement.

Paul William McGaffic, v. Janice Elois McGaffic
03A01-9707-CV-00286
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William L. Brown

This is a post-divorce case. Paul William McGaffic filed a petition seeking to modify his child support and periodic alimony in futuro obligations. As pertinent to the issues on
this appeal, the trial court refused to modify its existing child support and alimony in futuro decrees. Mr. McGaffic appealed, raising issues that essentially present the following questions: 1. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its alimony in futuro award by either terminating it, or reducing it and/or converting it to an award of rehabilitative alimony? 2. Does the evidence preponderate against the trial court’s refusal to modify its child support award?

Gloria E. Hill-Evans v. Bredell Michael Evans, Sr.
02A01-9607-CV-00157
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown, Jr.

In this divorce action brought by Gloria E. Hill-Evans (Mother) against Bredell Michael Evans, Sr. (Father), the trial court awarded custody of the parties’ two minor sons to Mother with Father to have reasonable visitation. However, the trial court’s decree further provided that visitation be suspended “until both of the parties and the children have completed a counseling program which is satisfactory to the court, and the court has been furnished a report that the counseling course has been successfully completed. When the counseling process has been successfully completed, the court will consider the defendant’s visitation rights.”

Wade Spurling D.C. v. Kirby Parkway Chiropractic, et al
02A01-9609-CH-00225
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

The plaintiff, Wade Spurling, D.C., appeals from the order of the trial court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) T.R.C.P. Spurling filed a complaint titled “Complaint For Deceit in Inducement to Contract, Promissory Fraud, Fraud, Intentional Interference With Performance ofContractual Obligations and Breach of Contract.” The complaint alleges that Plaintiff owned and operated Spurling Chiropractic Clinic (SCC). He entered into negotiations with Defendant Michael K. Plambeck (Plambeck) for Plambeck to purchase SCC.

Kenneth McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
01S01-9605-CV-00095
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing of this appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. We have considered all of the arguments raised in the petition and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.
 

Deliinger v. Arnold
03S01-9703-CV-00033
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Holt, Jr.,
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 court found plaintiff, James Walter Dellinger, totally disabled and apportioned 4% of the award of disability against his employer, The Arnold Engineering Company, and 6% against the Second Injury Fund. The judgment provided the award of benefits would be payable for a period of 4 weeks. The employer has appealed seeking a ruling that (1) the evidence is not sufficient to establish the employee's back injury was work-related and (2) the apportionment of 4% of the award to the employer is not supported by the evidence. The employee contends the award should be payable until he reaches his 65th birthday rather than for just 4 weeks, which would expire while he would be 63 years of age. Employee Dellinger was injured on June 14, 1994, while removing a lid from a "ball mill". He testified he was using a large pipe wrench and it slipped and struck him; this caused him to fall into a catwalk when he struck his side. He said that after the incident, he was hurting all over his body and he sought treatment for his back and side at the hospital emergency room. Plaintiff testified he had worked for his employer for twenty years and he generally worked ten to twelve hours a day, seven days a week. He was 55 years of age at the time of his injury and he had completed the third grade. He cannot read and writes very little. His job duties appear to involve a great deal of physical activity and exertion. He told the trial court he notified his supervisor, Johnny Ogle, and Darrell Adams, the production manager, how he was injured. The emergency room physician felt he had suffered a strain and recommended he return to work despite the fact plaintiff showed the doctor a knot or bulge on his stomach. The record is quite clear that he had a number of pre-existing medical problems which would appear to affect his employability to some extent. He suffered from Paget's disease which affected the bones in his hips and knees and caused complaints of pain, etc. He had diabetes, a heart murmur and high blood pressure. He had suffered prior work-related injuries: three broken ribs, broken finger and a 2