APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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 appellee has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause which, after due consideration, is denied.

This case involves a contractual dispute between the lessor and lessee of certain commercial property. The appellant, Lunn Real Estate Investments, Inc. (Lunn), leased the subject premises to the appellee, Boiler Supply Company, pursuant to an agreement executed by the parties on January 1, 1989. On August 31, 1995, Lunn served Boiler Supply with written notice that it was requiring the latter to vacate the premises by October 1, 1995.1 On October 5, 1995, Lunn filed a detainer action in the general sessions court seeking possession of the property. By order entered April 19, 1996, the court found the claim for possession moot due to Boiler Supply’s vacating of the premises on November 30, 1995, but awarded Lunn a judgment for two months holdover rent plus attorney’s fees.2 Lunn appealed the decision to circuit court where, after a hearing, a judgment was entered for Lunn for $17,790. Lunn now appeals from that decision to this Court requesting additional compensatory damages, due to Boiler Supply’s alleged failure to maintain the premises in accordance with the contract, and attorney’s fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

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

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

Ronnie D. Boyd, the Assessor of Property of Montgomery County, Tennessee, appeals the trial court’s judgment which ruled that eighty-nine percent (89%) of a parcel of real property owned by Petitioner/Appellee Batson East-Land Company, Inc., was entitled to “Greenbelt” status for the tax year 1991. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s ruling and, thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

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).

On Septem ber 12, 1996, a Shelby County jury found Appellant, Darrell E. Braddock, guilty of first degree felony m urder, criminal attem pt: to wit especially aggravated robbery, criminal attempt: to wit murder in the first degree, and two counts of aggravated assault. Appellant appeals from his convictions, raising two issues:

1) whether the evidence presented at trial was leg ally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict; and
2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State, because of the victim ’s family’s feelings, to withdraw its offer of a plea bargain.

After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The plaintiff describes himself as a whistle blower, as that term has come to be used, and seeks damages for his termination from employment because he allegedly refused to participate in and keep silent about certain allegedly illegal corporate activities. The allegations were denied by the defendants whose motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of (1) whether he was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment or whether these reasons were pretextual, (2) whether a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge remains viable in this jurisdiction, and (3) whether his termination constituted outrageous conduct by the defendants. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is denovo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of thecorrectness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). See, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). We will refer to the plaintiff as Hubrig, or as the appellant, or as the plaintiff. This record is unusually prolix; prima facie, it appeared to reflect a trial by affidavit, an impermissible use of RULE 56, see: Womack v. Blue Cross- Blue Shield, 593 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. 1980), but an in-depth analysis reveals that the trial court correctly held that the totality of the evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of fact or law. We therefore affirm the judgment.

The appellant, William Robert Diaz, appeals as of right the convictions and sentences he received in the Criminal Court of Anderson County. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder and was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to twenty-two (22) years for the murder and to twelve (12) years for attempted murder.1 The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.