APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Judy Plunk (“plaintiff”) as administratrix of her husband’s estate, filed  suit in the Circuit Court of Shelby County pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, (FELA) against the Illinois Central Railroad (“defendant” or “railroad”) seeking damages stemming from the death of her husband, Jerry Plunk (“decedent”), who was the engineer of a train owned and operated by defendant that was involved in a head-on collision with another train. The case was tried by a jury. At the  conclusion of plaintiff’s proof and again at the conclusion of all the proof, defendant made a motion for a directed verdict which was overruled each time by the trial court. The case was submitted to the  jury, who found plaintiff’s decedent 70% negligent and defendant 30% negligent in causing the collision, and awarded plaintiff $285,000.00 as damages. On appeal defendant has raised five issues for our consideration: whether the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant  defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the ground that decedent was the sole cause of the accident; (2) admitting into evidence testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Dennis Runcie; (3) allowing other railroad employees to testify as “experts” regarding “good railroad practice”; (4) admitting into evidence testimony of plaintiff’s economist expert, Fred Johnson;  and (5) failing to order plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss with prejudice  allegations of defendant’s vicarious liability in two collateral cases pending in Mississippi and to cease representation of certain plaintiffs in the Mississippi litigation. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we reverse in part and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial in keeping with the provisions of this opinion.

Plaintiffs Betty J. Collins, Panther Park Missionary Baptist Church, and six Church trustees appeal the trial court’s final judgment which established the boundary line between the parties’ respective properties. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that an existing fence row represents the boundary line between the properties.

Indicted for first degree murder, the defendant, Willie D. Graham, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the death of his brother-in-law, Ray Anthony Shervington. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of six years.

This suit was filed in General Sessions Court to collect a dishonored check, but was appealed to the Circuit Court where a complaint was filed stating more details of transactions involving the transfer of ownership of two automobiles, a Honda and a Chevrolet.

The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction, filed in the Trial Court a petition for the writ of certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles on April 18, 1996, rescinding its order of April 9, 1994, granting the prisoner a parole. At the time of the rescission, the prisoner had not been released from custody.

The captioned plaintiffs’ have appealed from a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ actions against the corporate defendant for the value of their stock as dissenting minority shareholders and their action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty as corporate directors.

This is yet another chapter in the administration of the estate of Harold L. Jenkins, a popular entertainer whose stage name was “Conway Twitty.” The executors initiated the present proceeding to resolve disputed rights of three devises in respect to the collection from them of certain charges appearing on the records of the deceased. The Probate Court resolved the issues in favor of the executors, and two of the devises appealed.

This is a medical malpractice suit in which the plaintiffs have appealed from a summary
judgment in favor of all defendants.

The appellant, Gary Lewis Thompson, was indicted by a Monroe County Grand Jury for the offense of vehicular homicide, driving under the influence, third offense, and driving on a revoked license. On July 22, 1996, the appellant pled guilty to DUI, third offense, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Prior to the guilty plea hearing, the State moved to nolle pros the vehicular homicide charge, which was granted. Additionally, the trial court, upon appellant’s motion, dismissed the charge of driving on a revoked license. Immediately following entry of the guilty plea, the State, for the first time, requested seizure and forfeiture of the appellant’s John Deere tractor, which he was operating at the time the DUI offense occurred. Following a sentencing hearing on September 6, 1996, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months twenty-nine days in the county jail and assessed a fine of $7,500 for the DUI, third offense conviction. The appellant’s release percentage was fixed at 75%. The trial court also ordered that the farm tractor be “confiscated” from the appellant’s possession and forfeited to the State. On November 8, 1996, the written order to seize and forfeit the tractor was entered. The appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(ii), raising the following two issues: I. Whether the period of confinement in the jail is excessive; and II. Whether § 55-10-403(k)(1) properly authorizes forfeiture of his tractor.

I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s order. In my view, it is simply a case of statutory application. In the “Open Parole Hearings Act” of 1993 the legislature provided that the Parole Board shall receive and consider victim impact statements, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-504(a); that notice be given to the victim or the victim’s representative and to the trial judge and district attorney involved in the original criminal prosecution, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(b)(1), (2) and (4); and that on a failure to provide the required notices, the Board may schedule a new hearing if the Board receives a written victim impact statement within fifteen days of the time the parole decision is finalized, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(d)(2).

The plaintiff, ContourMedical Technology, Inc., has appealed from a partial summary judgment dismissing that part of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, Flexcon Company, Inc., which seeks consequential damages resulting from defects in material purchased by plaintiff from defendant. The Trial Judge directed entry of final judgment as provided by TRCP Rule 54.02.

 The appellants have filed a petition to rehear based on the Western Section’s opinion in Sims v. Stewart, No. 02A01-9706-CV-00123 (Jackson, Jan. 21, 1998). In Sims the court relied on an earlier case of Dwight v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 701 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn. App. 1985), and decided that the policy in question “provides that reduction for worker’s compensation benefits applies to damages and in no way affects the coverage available.” We think that Dwight stated the opposite; it stated that coverage was reduced by any worker’s compensation benefits paid or payable. We respectfully overrule the petition to rehear.

The appellant, a nonlawyer, was elected to the office of General Sessions Judge of Hancock County in the August 1990 general election.