Opinions

State vs. Kenneth Johnson
02C01-9612-CR-00476

Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Raymond Jones
02C01-9705-CC-00162

State vs. Steven Culps
02C01-9705-CC-00163

Robert Martin vs. Union Planters
02A01-9708-CV-00179

Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Mildred Daniel vs. James Daniel
02A01-9606-CH-00135

Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

State vs. Rickey Nelson
02C01-9607-CR-00223

Trial Court Judge: John P. Colton, Jr.

McGlothlin vs. Bristol
03A01-9706-CV-00236

State vs. Timothy Brown
01C01-9701-CR-00032

Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Christopher Parker
01C01-9701-CR-00037

State vs. Larry Holbrooks
01C01-9701-CR-00011

State vs. James Jones
01C01-9612-CC-00522

Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

State vs. Mark Rawlings
02C01-9612-CR-00475

Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Mccartie

State vs. Gaylen Rhodes
02C01-9703-CC-00121

Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Darwin Windham
02C01-9705-CC-00196

Knoll vs. Knoll
03A01-9707-CH-00275

Stephens vs. Revco
03A01-9708-CV-00351

Worley vs. State
03A01-9708-JV-00366

State vs. Harry Reed
01C01-9701-CC-00007

State vs. Judy Leath
01C01-9511-CC-00393

Cheri Owens Tuncay v. Engin Halif Tuncay - Concurring
02A01-9709-CH-00209
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

This is a divorce case. Plaintiff-appellant Cheri Owens Tuncay was granted a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct. Mrs. Tuncay appeals the trial court’s division of the marital debts as well as the court’s failure to award her alimony beyond $5,000 in attorney fees.

Donald Neil Pierce, v. Branda Ann Radford Pierce
03A01-9707-GS-00250
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Austin

This is a divorce case.  On appeal, Brenda Pierce (wife) raises the issues of whether the tril court erred by refusing to grant her periodic alimony, by failing to grant her the divorce, and by failing to grant her discretionary costs and attorney's fees. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

Larry Stephen Roseberry, v. Janis Roseberry
03A01-9706-CH-00237
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

In this divorce action, the appellant (husband) appeals from the judgment of the trial court questioning the amount of child support he was ordered to pay, the division of marital property and alimony, including the amount, nature, and duration. The appellee (wife) seeks attorney fees for this appeal. No issue is presented relating to the granting of the divorce. We note that at the time of the trial, the husbanc had more than enough life insurance in force to satisfy this requirement.

Charles O'Guinn v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9703-CR-00084
Authoring Judge: Judge Lynn Brown
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt

Charles Ray O’Quinn, the petitioner, appeals pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On July 27, 1989, the petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated rape. The offenses occurred in April or May, and in June, 1988. He received Range II sentences of 35 years in the aggregate. The petitioner contends that his convictions for aggravated rape are void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea for that offense. See State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), rev'd, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

Gina Franklin et al., v. Allied Signal, Inc.
02A01-9704-CV-00088
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit A. Lafon

This appeal involves a suit filed by plaintiffs, Gina (“Mrs. Franklin”) and Barnee Franklin (“the Franklins”), against defendant, Allied Signal, Inc. (“Allied”), for personal injuries sustained when Mrs. Franklin tripped and fell on Allied’s premises on a metal loading ramp which protruded above the dock floor by one to two inches. The trial court granted Allied’s motion for summary judgment. The Franklins appeal and pose the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court committed error in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) whether the “open and obvious rule” bars plaintiff’s recovery or is only a factor to be considered in assessing comparative negligence. For reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand.

Homebound Medical Care of Southeast Tennessee, Inc., v. Hospital Staffing Services of Tennessee, Inc. Jeanine Warren, Nancy Hyde, AllCare Professional Svcs., and Stella Messer
03A01-9707-CH-00303
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Howard N. Peoples

This is an action whereby the plaintiff seeks to enforce a convenant not to compete in an employment agreement between the defendant, Warren, and the plaintiff. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The motion did not set out any grounds for relief but simply stated that defendants "file this motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Tennesse Rules of Civil Procedure" and referred the court to grounds stated in their briefs in support of themotion. The brief is not included in the record. Apparently, the parties did not make a designation of record and the Clerk of the court correctly omitted the brief pursuant to Rule 24, Tennessee rulesof Appellate Procedure.