Delisa Ribbins Leak and Mareshi A. Leak, B/N/F Delisa Ribbins Leak, v. Laurie Goodwill and AT&T Service, Inc.
03A01-9611-CV-00359
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Samuel H. Payne

Delisa Ribbins Leak and Meshi Leak, by next friend, Delisa Ribbins Leak, appeal an order of the Circuit Court dismissing their case against Laurie Goodwill. The case had purportedly been appealed from the General Sessions Court pursuant to an order of two Judges of that Court granting a writ of certiorari. The appeal on related to one Defendant, Laurie Goodwill, and not the other Defendant, AT&T Service, Inc. Upon motion of Ms. Goodwill, the Circuit Judge dismissed the case against her, apparently on the grounds raised in the motion, that their appeal was not timely, and thereupon remanded the case to the General Sessions Court for "further hearing as to AT&T Service, Inc."

Price and Price Mechanical, Inc., v. Jame Edward Hale and Hale Construction Company, Inc., - Concurring
03A01-9612-CH-00402
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ben K. Wexler

This case is before the court on an extra ordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10, Tennessee Rules of  Appellate Procedure.  The sole issue which we are called upon to decide is whether Tennessee recognizes the tort of  "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage" (The tort ). The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the premise that Tennessee does not recognize the tort, citing Kultura, Inc., v. Southern Leasing, 923 S. W. 2d 536, (Tenn. 1996), quoting from Quality Auto Parts v. Bluff City Buick, 876 S. W. 2d 818, 823 (Tenn. 1994).

Lunsford v. Shaw
03S01-9607-CH-00078
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. Peoples,
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 issue in this case involves the enforcement of payment of post-trial medical expenses. The trial court found the employer, Shaw Industries, Inc., in contempt for unreasonable delay in paying post-judgment medical expenses. The only sanction the court imposed was an award of attorney's fees to the employee, Clark Vann Lunsford, as the hearing revealed the medical expenses originally in dispute were paid shortly prior to the hearing. The parties originally settled the workers' compensation claim by entry of an order on November 3, 1994, which provided for an award based on 4% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The order then provided the employer would pay "reasonable and necessary medical expenses for which it is liable to date and in the future." A petition for contempt was filed on October 1, 1995, alleging that during March, 1995, the employee was hospitalized in Bozeman, Montana and incurred medical expenses in the amount of $5,452.3 and that the employer's refusal to pay these expenses was a violation of the court's order. After a hearing on this issue, the Chancellor found there had been an unreasonable delay in paying the expenses and the delay violated the final judgment. The record indicates that a hearing had not been conducted prior to the contempt hearing to determine whether the medical expenses were the responsibility of the employer. On appeal the employer insists the employee should have filed a motion or petition requesting the court to determine whether the medical expenses were causally related to the compensable injury and obtained an order directing the payment of the expenses before it would be proper to file a petition for contempt for failure to pay the expenses. In response to this contention, the employee contends the court's order did 2

Anthony P. Guiliano v. Cleo Inc. - Concurring
02A01-9608-CV-00201
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Swearengen

This is a breach of an employment contract case. Defendant, Cleo, Inc. (Cleo), appeals the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Anthony P. Guiliano (Guiliano).

Lorraine Burton Spears Marcus vs. Trent Wright Marcus - Concurring
02A01-9611-CH-00278
Authoring Judge: Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Floyd Peete

This case is a procedural quagmire. The dispositive issue on appeal, though not of the merits, of the case, is whether the Chancellor was correct in declining to assume jurisdiction of it.

Flanagan vs. Flanagan
03A01-9612-GS-00404

Wilson vs. Wilson
03A01-9610-CH-00322

Maurice Booker vs. State
01C01-9606-CC-00271
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Shawn Huff
01C01-9606-CC-00261
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.

State vs. James Holloway
01C01-9608-CR-00330
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

William Lee Bramlett vs. State
01C01-9506-CC-00207
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

James E. Peden vs. State
01C01-9509-CC-00298
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Christopher Langley
01C01-9402-CC-00038

State vs. Christopher Langley
01C01-9402-CC-00038
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain

Jason Jermaine Dobbins vs. State
01C01-9703-CC-00113

State vs. William Charles Jones
01C01-9512-CC-00402

Cyril v. Fraser
01C01-9511-CR-00370
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

01C01-9603-CC-00107
01C01-9603-CC-00107
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

State vs. Jerome Patrick Lyons
01C01-9603-CC-00119
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee

Robert & Frances Pilgrim vs. Edward Frazier
02A01-9611-CV-00294
Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.

Emma Crowe vs. James Craig, et al
02A01-9612-CV-00297
Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon

Jere Rogers, et ux vs. Mark Davis, et al
02A01-9610-CH-00258
Trial Court Judge: Homer W. Bradberry

Cannon vs. Cannon
03A01-9702-CV-00059

State vs. Gaylen Scott
02C01-9707-CC-00244

Cinda Kay Cantrell vs. James Clarence Cantrell & Marie Loya
01A01-9603-CV-00091
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley