02A01-9411-CV-00265
02A01-9411-CV-00265
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler

Diana Morris v. State
M1999-02714-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute between the State of Tennessee and a former employee of the Department of Correction arising out of a work-related injury. After the Department discharged her for failing to return to work, the employee filed a retaliatory discharge claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that she had actually been fired because she had filed a workers' compensation claim. The Tennessee Court of Appeals determined that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over retaliatory discharge claims and vacated the Commission's $300,000 award to the employee. While the employee's appeal was pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee General Assembly retroactively broadened the Commission's jurisdiction to include retaliatory discharge claims. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this court's decision and remanded the case to this court for further consideration. We have determined that the Tennessee General Assembly may enact retroactive laws waiving the State's sovereign immunity with regard to past events, and we accede to the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in this case that the General Assembly validated the results of this proceeding. We also have concluded that the Commission had authority to award front pay damages. Accordingly, we affirm the Commission's award.

Cecil Ayers vs. Minda Ayers
W1999-01261-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby

Tony Blan D v. State of Tennessee
W2002-01784-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Tony Bland v. State of Tennessee
W2002-01784-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

Lorri Bailey (Capps) vs. David Capps
M1999-02300-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This child custody case has already been the subject of one appeal before this Court. The father was awarded sole custody of the parties' only child, with the mother receiving liberal visitation rights. The mother petitioned for a change of custody. The trial court found that there was no material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an award of sole custody to the mother. However, the original custody order was modified to provide that the parties had joint custody, with the father being the "primary residential custodian." The trial court also ordered that the mother was no longer required to pay child support and that the mother owed no arrearage in child support. The father appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part, affirming the order of joint custody and the order that the mother is not required to pay child support, but we reverse on the issue of the mother's child support arrearage.

Arthur Ray Lepley
01C01-9903-CR-00084

Joe Utley vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9709-CR-00428
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge L. T. Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The appellant, Joe L. Utley, appeals as of right from a judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner alleges that trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in several areas. After a through review of the record, we REMAND to the trial court with instructions to enter a findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In Re: Estate of Warren Glenn Brown, Candice Mathis, v. Joe Brown
01A01-9809-PB-00471
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew Jackson

In this case, the decedent’s grand niece, Candice Mathis, the petitioner, appeals the trial court’s finding that she failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence the lost or destroyed will of her grand uncle, Warren Brown. The trial court ordered that the administration of the estate proceed as an intestate estate. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Cheryl Hall v. James H. Crenshaw, M.D., The Jackson Clinic Professional Association, et al.

Cedric Dickerson v. State of Tennessee

Cedric Dickerson (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life without the possibility of parole for his first degree felony murder conviction and eleven years for his aggravated robbery conviction and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. See State v. Cedric Dickerson, No. 02C01-9802-CR-00051, 1999 WL 74213, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 17, 1999). The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following a post-conviction hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that “the Eighth Amendment should prohibit life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.” Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision denying relief.

John Doe v. Jane Doe
M2003-01142-SC-S25-BP
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker

The petitioner, an attorney identified as John Doe, filed a petition for contempt alleging violations by the respondent, an attorney identified as Jane Doe, of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court directed the parties to address as a threshold matter the constitutionality of Rule 9, section 25. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Attorney General and amicus curiae, and analyzing the applicable law, we hold that section 25 of Rule 9 violates free speech protections of Article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further conclude that sanctions for criminal contempt are not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the petition for contempt is denied.

Mina Woods and Robert Woods v. World Truck Transfer, Inc. and Edward J. Seigham
M1997-00068-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This appeal involves a personal injury action that was dismissed because the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Davidson County refused to accept and file a summons that had not been prepared on an original form provided by the clerk. By the time the plaintiff provided another summons acceptable to the clerk, the time for filing the complaint and the summons had elapsed. Accordingly, on motion of one of the defendants, the Circuit Court for Davidson County dismissed the personal injury claim because it was time-barred. We have determined that the clerk’s office exceeded its authority when it declined to accept and file the summons and, therefore, that the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing the personal injury claims and remand the case for further proceedings.

Daniel B. Taylor v. Donal Campbell, et al.
M1998-00913-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction regarding the prisoner's request for access to the Department's rules governing prisoner sentence credits. The Department responded by informing the prisoner that its policies governing prisoner sentence reduction credits could be found in the prison law library. Thereafter, the prisoner filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County complaining that he had been wrongfully denied access to public records. The Commissioner of Correction moved to dismiss the complaint. Alternatively, the Commissioner sought a summary judgment and supported his motion with affidavits asserting that the prisoner had already received all the information he sought. Based on these affidavits, the trial court granted the Commissioner's summary judgment motion and dismissed the prisoner's complaint. We have determined that the Commissioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, therefore, reverse the summary dismissal of the prisoner's complaint.

Alton F. Dixon v. Nike, Inc.
02A01-9702-CH-00049
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

Plaintiff, Alton F. Dixon, appeals the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Nike, Inc. Nike is a manufacturer of sporting goods, footwear, and apparel, and Dixon was an at-will employee of Nike. Nike encourages its employees to actively participate in improving their work environment and in implementing ideas for new products on the market 2 through a program called “I Got It.” The program invites Nike’s employees to submit ideas that “eliminate waste, improve the way we work, increase productivity, prevent accidents, save time, money, or energy.” Employees can also submit ideas for new products or inventions. In a weekly bulletin for employees, Nike stated, “If what you are suggesting is an idea for a new product or invention, to protect you and NIKE, a letter of understanding will be sent for your signature stating, in essence, that NIKE will not use your product idea until a written contract is negotiated and signed.”

Johnny L. Butler, v. State of Tennessee
02C01-9509-CR-00289
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

The petitioner, who is serving a sentence for a federal court conviction, has filed two petitions attacking prior state convictions which were used to enhance the sentence for the federal conviction. These two petitions, called petitions for the writ of coram nobis or for habeas corpus, were dismissed by the trial court without a hearing on the basis that they were actually petitions for post-conviction relief and barred by the statute of limitations. We agree with the trial court.

James Gant v. Kenneth Broadway, County Executive and Chmn of the Decatur County Commission, et al.
02A01-9701-CH-00007
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor J. Walton West

Petitioner, James Edward Gant, appeals the judgment of the chancery court denying his application for a beer permit.

State of Tennessee v. Gussie Willis Vann - Dissenting
03S01-9706-CR-00068
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bebb

I agree with the majority’s resolution of every issue in this case but one: the effect of the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on second-degree murder. The majority concludes that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the offense of second-degree murder is not error because the evidence in the record does not support that offense. Because I find the evidence can indeed support a conviction of seconddegree murder, I respectfully dissent.

Robert L. Delaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
01S01-9808-CH-00144
Authoring Judge: Special Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Arnold
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This Court has been appointed by the Governor to decide the case of Delaney v. Thompson, et al., in which the plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the uniquely statutory merit selection system for appellate judges called the Tennessee Plan. Rather than contend with the constitutional issues, the majority, deciding this case by statutory construction, utilizes a construction which reflects neither the meaning of the statute nor the positions of the parties. In doing so, the majority opinion neither clarifies issues of importance to the electorate and judiciary, nor discourages future litigation on the same issues.

April Wallace, Vickie Guinn, et al., v. National Bank of Commerce, et al.
02S01-9509-CV-00074
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge James M. Tharpe

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court found that the
record shows, as a matter of law, that the defendant banks did not breach the duty of good faith in imposing fees for returned checks drawn on accounts with insufficient funds.
This Court concurs in the decision made by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Deborah Lorraine Brooks v. Rickey Lamar Brooks - Dissenting
03S01-9804-CV-00034
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Earle G. Murphy

It is apparent that this Court has based its finding that Mr. Brooks is willfully and voluntarily underemployed simply on the fact that he, at one time, was more lucratively employed. Simply because a parent is not as lucratively employed as during the marriage, or for a time thereafter, no automatic inference that he or she is willfully and voluntarily underemployed should be drawn. We must remain cognizant of a parent’s right as a citizen to the pursuit of happiness and to the freedom to make reasonable employment decisions, while at the same time heeding the duty to support.

Dorothy Owens, as Conservator of Mary Francis King, et al. v. National Health Corporation, et al.
M2005-01272-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

In Re: Cidney L.

In Re: Cidney L.

In Re: Cidney L.