APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Jerome Emmett Huntley, was convicted of introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony, and public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of five years, six months and thirty days. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for introduction of contraband into a penal institution and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals as of right from his Hamilton County jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a life sentence. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting unduly prejudicial autopsy photographs of the victim and that the evidence was insufficient to show that he premeditated the killing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant hospital filed suit against Appellee insurance company for damages arising from Appellee’s alleged impairment of the Appellant’s hospital lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellant hospital, finding that Appellant had perfected its lien under Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101, and that the Appellee had impaired that lien pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-104. The trial court, however, limited Appellant’s recovery to the amount of coverage under the insurance policy. We affirm as modified herein.

The petitioner, Jason Crawford, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the appeal as untimely filed or, in the alternative, affirm the circuit court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to timely file his notice of appeal and his claims do not warrant consideration in the “interest of justice.” Therefore, his appeal is dismissed.

This is an wrongful death action arising under a theory of premises liability. Plaintiff’s husband died as a result of injuries he sustained after tripping over a piece of concrete embedded in a dirt path. Plaintiff alleged that two of the defendants, who were under a separate maintenance contract with the owner of the property, failed to exercise the required due care in the maintance, inspection, and repairs of the path. The trial court granted directed verdicts for both defendants after finding that neither owed a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. We agree that defendant Brooks Shaw did not have a duty to maintain the path. However, we have determined that defendant Town and Country did owe a duty to Plaintiff’s husband. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact for the jury to decide. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant, Virgil Samuels, pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated rape. The defendant received a total effective sentence of thirty-five years to be served as a violent offender. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he was coerced by counsel into pleading guilty. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a nuisance case. The plaintiff landowner filed a complaint alleging a continuous nuisance caused by grading completed on adjacent property. The plaintiff alleged that the grading had altered the natural drainage pattern, causing damage to her house. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The defendants sought summary judgment, raising the statute of limitations as a defense. The trial court agreed and granted defendants’ motion. Finding that a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, we reverse. 

The defendant, Jimmy Stuart Mynatt, appeals his convictions of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life plus twenty-five years.  On appeal, he contends that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress statements made to the police; and the trial court erred in instructing the jury. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court.

This is a wrongful death action brought under a theory of medical malpractice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs filed their complaint after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. After careful review, we find that Plaintiffs had notice of their claim no later than February 27, 2003, and their lawsuit was not timely filed. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Jerry Timberlake, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief based on his failure to verify the petition under oath. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this interpleader action, plaintiff held an IRA account established by decedent. When decedent died dispute arose between his companion and his blood relatives, because he had designated his companion as the sole beneficiary of his IRA account, but in his Will he gave the IRA account to his relatives. The contending parties raised this dispute in their pleadings and after an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court ruled that the designee on the IRA account was entitled to the proceeds because the relatives did not carry the burden of proof to establish undue influence was exercised on the decedent when he established the IRA account. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand with the cost of the cause taxed to appellants.

A former inmate in the Davidson County jail filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction against the Davidson County Sheriff and the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in which he alleged he had been mistreated while incarcerated. The defendants moved to dismiss the former inmate’s petition for injunctive relief on the ground that he was no longer incarcerated, and thus his action for injunctive relief was moot. The plaintiff failed to respond to the motion and did not attend the hearing on the motion. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss from which the plaintiff appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding Appellant’s expert’s standard of care and causation opinions and in granting summary judgment to the Appellees as to Appellant’s medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims. We affirm.

The appellant filed this action against the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Lottery Commission alleging that the defendants breached a contract with him by failing to pay him the $171,000,000 grand prize for the December 8, 2004 Powerball drawing.2 The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

The petitioner, Earice Roberts, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court should have granted him relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence that a police officer and witness for the State had committed crimes in her official capacity as manager of the evidence and property room. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the petition.

The petitioner, Cornelius Richmond, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which rendered his guilty pleas involuntary and unknowing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal came on to be heard upon the record of the Chancery Court of Greene County and briefs filed on behalf of the respective parties. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Chancery Court should be vacated and this case remanded.

I fully concur in the majority’s conclusion that Memphis Housing Authority (“MHA”) owed a duty to its tenants to take reasonable steps to prevent them from suffering harm, and I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. I write separately to reaffirm my view that “any discussion of foreseeability in the context of duty encroaches upon the role of the finder of fact.” Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347, 375 (Tenn. 2008) (Holder, J., concurring and dissenting).

The plaintiffs, survivors of a tenant shot and killed by the criminal act of another tenant, filed suit against the defendant housing authority, alleging negligence and breach of contract for failure to provide a safe premises. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the housing authority and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review to determine whether the housing authority owed a duty of care, an essential component of the claim, under the theory of negligence. Because the potential for violence in the housing project was reasonably foreseeable and the gravity of the harm outweighed the burden on the housing authority to have taken reasonable protective measures, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The defendant, Brian A. Lowman, was denied pretrial diversion by the district attorney general for Hamilton County and requested review of the denial by the trial court. After review, the trial court reversed the denial of pretrial diversion by the district attorney general. The State then appealed the decision of the trial court to this court for review. After careful review, we conclude that the district attorney general did not abuse his discretion in denying pretrial diversion and reverse the decision of the trial court granting pretrial diversion.

The plaintiff filed interrogatories and requests for production seeking information concerning the defendants’ liability insurance coverage. When the defendants objected to providing this information, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.01. The trial court ruled that the information was subject to discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02 and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and the defendants’ request for an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order, holding that information concerning the defendants’ liability insurance coverage was not discoverable under Rule 26.02. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff filed interrogatories and requests for production seeking information concerning the defendants’ liability insurance coverage. When the defendants objected to providing this information, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 37.01. The trial court ruled that the information was subject to discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02 and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and the defendants’ request for an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order, holding that information concerning the defendants’ liability insurance coverage was not discoverable under Rule 26.02. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Appellants, Edward Earl Allen, Jr. and Carlos A. Branch, entered best interest guilty pleas in Davidson County to one count of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a weapon on school property after an incident at Vanderbilt University. The plea agreement did not specify the length or manner of service of the sentences but specified that the sentences would run concurrently to each other. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellants to six years for aggravated assault and two years for possession of a weapon on school property, as Range I Standard Offenders. Appellants seek a review of their sentence on appeal. Because the record supports the sentences and the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing as to Appellant Branch, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Carmi Binkins, was convicted of two counts of attempted second
degree murder, a Class B felony; two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction with one of the attempted murder convictions and sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for each of the attempted second degree murder convictions and to twenty-four years at 100 percent for each of the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The court ordered that the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions be served concurrently with the attempted murder convictions but consecutively to each other, for an effective sentence of fortyeight years at 100 percent in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) his right to confrontation was violated when a crying victim was allowed to display his injuries to the jury despite being found incompetent to testify; and (2) the trial court provided erroneous instructions on the elements of especially aggravated kidnapping when answering a question from the jury. The State argues that the defendant has waived the issues by failing to include an adequate record on appeal and that the trial court’s jury instructions were proper. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm Defendant’s convictions but remand to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect that count four is to be served concurrently with count two and that Defendant’s especially aggravated kidnapping sentences are to be served at 100 percent release eligibility.