APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Lamonn Lee Harris, entered an open guilty plea to fourteen counts of forgery, Class E felonies, and one count of theft less than $500.00, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of six years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing and in imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly dismissed the wife’s complaint for “fraud, deceit, and coercion” after finding that her complaint failed to state an independent action upon which to set aside a final divorce decree. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the wife failed to allege sufficient facts to support either an independent action to set aside the final divorce decree under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or a separate common law cause of action for fraud. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed on the grounds set forth in this opinion.

I agree with the majority opinion that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, that there are genuine issues of material fact as to cause in fact and proximate or legal cause. I continue, however, to adhere to my previous position that the majority’s analysis blurs the line between duty and legal causation by improperly encouraging “the trial court to usurp the role of the jury in weighing the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct.” Burroughs v. Magee, 118 S.W.3d 323, 339 (Tenn. 2003) (Holder, J., concurring and dissenting).1

We granted this appeal to determine whether a defendant who was found 100% at fault in a negligence action submitted to arbitration was liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages where the plaintiff had already received half of the amount of damages in a settlement with another defendant. The Court of Appeals concluded that the arbitrator had exceeded his scope of authority by requiring the defendant to pay the full amount of damages and modified the judgment. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that the defendant was not entitled to a credit based on the amount of damages received by the plaintiff in a settlement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the trial court's judgment is reinstated.

We granted review to determine whether the property owners owed a duty to a person injured off the owners’ property as a result of a hazard existing on the owners’ property and if so, to determine whether the hazard was the cause of the injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant property owners, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After carefully reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that the sidewalk was not obstructed by overgrown bushes and was passable. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants’ breach caused her injury. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Reversed; Case Remanded to the Trial Court
 

The defendant, Ricky Estes, was convicted of burglary of an automobile, theft under $500.00, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to four years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for a continuance; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Beverly Dixon, pleaded guilty to one count of felony Class B theft of property over $60,000. The trial court imposed an incarcerative eight-year sentence and denied any form of alternative sentencing. On appeal, the defendant argues that the sentencing process was flawed by the introduction of prejudicial hearsay and that the trial court should have granted probation or placement into a community corrections program. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted permission to appeal in this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 to determine the legality of the defendant’s sentence. The defendant, Amy Denise Sutton, was convicted by a jury of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000. The trial court sentenced her to confinement for one year, followed by two years in community corrections. On appeal, she contends that because the length of her confinement exceeds her estimated release eligibility date of 10.8 months, her sentence is illegal. The defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because we conclude that the defendant’s release eligibility date is a mere possibility and not a right, we find the sentence to be valid. Further, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented for a rational jury to convict the defendant of the charged offense. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Chester Floyd Cole, of incest, a Class C felony, and assault, a Class B misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years for the incest and six months for the assault1 to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the incest count pursuant to Rule 8, Tenn. R. Crim. P., and State v. Dominy, 67 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court.

A would-be developer of a construction and demolition landfill sued the Metropolitan Government after its legislative body adopted zoning amendments that would effectively preclude the proposed landfill on the property the company had leased with an option to purchase. The company attacked the ordinances on multiple grounds and was successful in having the trial court declare them unconstitutional as violative of substantive due process and equal protection. Because of the company’s limited interest in the real property, however, the court refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the ordinances against the company or to award damages. The trial court also awarded attorney’s fees to the company. The Metropolitan Government appeals the holding that the ordinances were unconstitutional on the merits as well as on a number of procedural grounds and also appeals the award of attorney’s fees. The company appeals the trial court’s decision that the ordinances did not constitute exclusionary zoning. We affirm the trial court on all issues.

The appellant, Ericonta Daman Flenoid, pled guilty in the Sumner County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary and robbery. He received a total effective sentence of ten years, with one year to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation, finding that the appellant failed to comply with the terms of probation. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve his sentences in confinement. The appellant appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, William F. Cain, was convicted of misdemeanor stalking and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail. On appeal, Cain raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and (2) whether he should have received a suspended sentence. After review, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

This is a medical negligence case brought by a state prisoner. The plaintiff prisoner alleges injury stemming from an act of medical negligence by a state employee in August 2001, while the plaintiff prisoner was in state custody. In March 2002, the prisoner erroneously filed a lawsuit in chancery court, which was dismissed in January 2003. In February 2003, the prisoner filed the instant claim with the claims commission. The claims commission found that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the filing of the chancery lawsuit because the Attorney General had not agreed to transfer the chancery lawsuit, and dismissed the claim as untimely. The plaintiff prisoner appealed. This Court reversed the dismissal on the basis that the agreement of the Attorney General to the transfer was no longer required, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the claims commission found that the plaintiff prisoner’s claim was not in the class of cases eligible for transfer from chancery court, and on that basis again dismissed the plaintiff prisoner’s complaint as being untimely. The plaintiff prisoner again appeals. We affirm, concluding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the erroneous filing of the chancery court lawsuit, and that consequently the plaintiff prisoner’s claim with the claims commission was untimely.

The appellant, Ericonta Daman Flenoid, pled guilty in the Sumner County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary and robbery. He received a total effective sentence of ten years, with one year to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation, finding that the appellant failed to comply with the terms of probation. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve his sentences in confinement. The appellant appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Parents of minor killed as passenger in a single-car accident brought wrongful death action against Defendants/Appellees, a husband and wife whose home decedent had visited, as an uninvited guest, in the hour preceding the accident. Trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants/Appellees. Parents/Appellants appeal, asserting that Defendants/Appellees owed a duty of care to decedent because they condoned the use of alcohol by minors in their home and thereby created a special relation with decedent. We affirm.

In this medical malpractice case involving the alleged wrongful death of Walter Ray Alsip ("Mr. Alsip" or "the deceased"), we granted the plaintiffs' Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application for an interlocutory appeal in order to review the trial court's order allowing defense counsel to engage in ex parte dialogue with Mr. Alsip's last-illness, non-defendant treating physicians. We conclude that the trial court erred in entering the order that permitted defense counsel to have private conversations with the non-defendant physicians who treated the deceased during his last illness. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order.

The petitioner, Wayford Demonbreun, Jr., appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The defendant, Mack T. Transou, stands convicted of rape and sexual battery, for which he received an effective sixteen-year sentence. Aggrieved of his convictions and sentence, the defendant brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence and the imposition of his sentence in violation of his right to trial by jury. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence.

This case involves the authority of the General Sessions Court to set aside its own judgment. The plaintiff’s decedent died in January 2000. In January 2001, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim in the General Sessions Court against the defendants. In April 2001, the General Sessions Court entered an order dismissing the case, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. The General Sessions Court later determined that the order dismissing for lack of prosecution was erroneously entered. Consequently, in May 2001, the General Sessions Court entered a consent order setting aside its April 2001order. In December 2001, the plaintiff voluntarily nonsuited the General Sessions lawsuit, and the General Sessions Court entered a consent order of dismissal without prejudice. In June 2002, the plaintiff refiled her lawsuit in the Circuit Court below. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, claiming that the plaintiff was required to refile her lawsuit within one year of the April 2001 General Sessions order, dismissing for lack of prosecution. The defendants asserted that the General Sessions Court was without authority to adjudicate the matter further after the April 2001 order of dismissal was entered.  The Circuit Court disagreed and denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The defendants were granted permission to file this interlocutory appeal. We reverse, concluding that the General Sessions Court did not have the authority to set aside its April 2001 judgment.

The appellant, Chris Ebbs, pled guilty in May of 1996 to attempted aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to six (6) years in the Department of Correction. The trial court suspended the sentence to probation for six (6) years conditioned upon various requirements. In June of 2001, a probation violation warrant was filed. As a result, the trial court revoked the appellant's suspended sentence and ordered the appellant to serve the six-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's decision to revoke probation. After a review of the record and applicable legal authorities we conclude the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

This is a mother's appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her son. After the Tennessee Department of Children's Services took custody of her son, it prepared a permanency plan requiring Mother to obtain therapy and case management services and perform other remedial tasks within approximately twelve months. After only six months, however, the Department filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights, and the court terminated her rights. Mother appeals claiming, in pertinent part, that the Department did not make reasonable efforts to reunite mother and son and that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mother committed severe child abuse. We have determined that the Department has failed to prove a ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and, consequently, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed.

In this action involving child support, the issues are whether the trial court erred in finding that the father provided adequate discovery information regarding his income and assets; whether the trial court erred in ordering the mother to pay half the cost of the father's airfare to attend his deposition in Tennessee; whether the court should have awarded the mother more attorney's fees than it did; and whether the trial court erred in failing to hold the father responsible for a hospital bill for medical treatment of the parties' child. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand.

This is an appeal as of right from the denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, Jeffrey Lynn Myers, was convicted of one count of attempted rape upon entry of a best-interest guilty plea. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment as a Range I, standard offender. The Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief and received an evidentiary hearing. The trial court subsequently denied the Defendant's petition, and he now appeals to this Court. He argues multiple issues, all of which we find to have been waived because the claims are either (1) not proper issues for a post-conviction proceeding, (2) not properly preserved for appeal, or (3) not reviewable due to an incomplete record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a parental rights termination case. The mother appeals the trial court's decision terminating her parental rights to two of her three children. On appeal, the mother argues, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We conclude that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision and therefore, we reverse.