APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas
company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are
resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property
owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

This appeal is one of twenty-seven similar appeals arising from a dispute between a natural gas company that has the power of eminent domain and the owners of twenty-seven properties who are resisting the company’s efforts to construct an extension of an existing pipeline. After these property owners refused to permit the company to conduct preliminary examinations and surveys on their properties, the company filed separate complaints against the owners of each tract in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking orders authorizing it to conduct the preliminary examinations and surveys necessary for the siting of the project pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 (2000). The trial court conducted an expedited joint hearing and entered an order dismissing the company’s complaints. The company appealed, and we consolidated the cases for oral argument. We have concluded that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-121 is not preempted by the Natural Gas Act and that the company is entitled to the orders of preliminary entry it sought. Accordingly, we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the company’s complaints.

The Petitioner, Carlos L. Rice, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Petitioner, Grover L. Dunigan, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his conviction for second degree murder. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing on the grounds that the petition was time-barred. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that due process requires tolling the statute of limitations because his trial attorney never told him that the supreme court had denied his Rule 11 application. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the lower court properly dismissed the petition. Therefore, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Plaintiff sued for attorney's fees under contract of employment with defendant. The Trial Court awarded Judgment for fees. Both parties appealed. We affirm.

The issue presented in this case is whether the policemen and firemen's rule applies to an animal control officer who was bitten by a Doberman pinscher while performing the duties of his employment. The plaintiff, an animal control officer for the Chattanooga Police Department, was bitten when, in the course and scope of his employment, he attempted to take possession of the defendants' dog at their home. The plaintiff sued the defendants for compensatory damages, claiming that they were negligent in failing to warn him about the dangerous nature of the dog. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment upon its determination that the dog's owners owed no duty to the plaintiff under the circumstances pursuant to the policemen and firemen's rule which precludes police officers and firefighters from recovering for injuries arising out of risks peculiar to their employment. Upon review, we find that the dog's owners owed no duty of ordinary care to the animal control officer and therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Edna Phelps, was found guilty by a Madison County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years, all suspended except for eleven months and twenty-nine days with the balance to be served on intensive probation. On appeal, she argues the trial court erred in overruling her objections to certain questions asked by the State. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Murphy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and two counts of theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. The trial court merged the first degree felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, for which the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, merged the two theft convictions, and sentenced the defendant to two years for the theft conviction, to be served concurrently with the life sentence without parole. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to allow hearsay statements of the victim into evidence, in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police, and in not instructing the jury on the adverse inference that could be drawn from the State’s failure to preserve the tape recording of the defendant’s statements. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Case No. 01-02751 to reflect the defendant’s conviction offense which was omitted.

A jury convicted the defendant, Charles Rice, of first degree murder. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; and (3) the murder was knowingly committed by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit a rape. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13- 204(i)(2), (5), (7) (1997). The jury also found that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the jury imposed a sentence of death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence.

Upon automatic appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 (2003), this Court entered an order specifying seven issues for oral argument,¹ including (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances found by the jury; (3) whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury that aggravated assault was a felony whose statutory elements involve violence to the person violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (4) whether the trial court’s restriction of the defendant’s cross-examination regarding Tony Evans’ prior conviction was harmless error; (5) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to sit at the defense counsel table; (6) whether the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation; and (7) whether the death sentence is comparatively proportionate and valid under the mandatory review provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(A)- (D) (2003). After a careful review of the record and relevant legal authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Shields Mountain Property Owners Association, Inc., James R. Hall, and Terri L. Hall ("Plaintiffs") sued Marion A. Teffeteller and Charlene A. Teffeteller ("Defendants") seeking, among other things, to enforce restrictive covenants and enjoin Defendants from renting their property in Shields Mountain Estates for overnight vacation purposes. The Trial Court found and held, inter alia, that the covenants and restrictions at issue are applicable to the lots within Shields Mountain Estates including Defendants' lots; that Defendants' use of their lots for vacation rentals is a violation of the covenants and restrictions; and that Defendants are permanently enjoined from using property they own in Shields Mountain Estates for vacation rentals. Defendants appeal to this Court. We affirm.

In this pro se medical malpractice case, the issues on appeal are whether the Appellant, Larry Grigsby, timely filed a notice of appeal as regards Defendants Dr. Paul A. Hatcher and Dr. E. Jay Mounger, and whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the University of Tennessee Medical Center ("UTMC"). We dismiss the appeal as to the Defendant doctors because we find that Mr. Grigsby did not comply with the jurisdictional requirement of Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), mandating the timely filing of a notice of appeal. We affirm summary judgment in UTMC's favor because Mr. Grigsby proceeded solely on the vicarious liability theory of respondeat superior, pursuant to his allegations that Drs. Hatcher and Mounger were agents and/or employees of UTMC. Because the alleged agents have been exonerated by an adjudication of non-liability, and therefore the alleged principal, UTMC, may not be held vicariously liable, we affirm summary judgment in favor of UTMC.

The husband appeals from a final decree of divorce challenging the award of divorce to the wife, the distribution of property, and the award of some property as alimony in solido to the wife. Because the husband raises factual issues and there is no transcript or statement of the evidence in the record, we must presume the record would have supported the factual findings of the trial court and accordingly affirm.

We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel erred in reducing the trial court's disability award from 33% to 3%. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we conclude that reduction of the trial court's award is appropriate. We further conclude, however, that we are unable to enter an appropriate award based on the record before us. We therefore remand to the trial court to enter an award consistent with this opinion.

A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Willie R. Harris, Jr., of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"). On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it admitted the results his blood alcohol content test into evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In an action to quiet title, the Trial Court granted plaintiff summary judgment and defendant appealed. We affirm the Trial Court.

The appellants, Kaitlyn Calaway and Kathleen Calaway, have filed a petition to rehear the opinion of this Court issued December 9, 2005. In their petition, the appellants request that the Court give the decision in this case prospective application only. The appellants further request that the Court elaborate on certified questions one and two regarding the recovery of medical expenses where the statute of repose has not run on a minor’s claim.

Upon due consideration, we conclude that the appellants’ petition to rehear is well-taken and should be granted to the extent that it seeks prospective application of the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to substitute and file the attached amended majority opinion in place of the original majority opinion. The petition to rehear is denied to the extent that it seeks further discussion of certified questions one and two.

Also before the Court are two motions filed by potential plaintiffs in an unrelated matter. Karen Crespo and Freddie Crespo have filed a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and a motion to file an amicus brief in excess of fifteen (15) pages. According to these motions, the Crespos are the parents of a minor child with a brain injury and are in the process of preparing a medical negligence suit. The Crespos urge the Court to rehear the opinion and allow them to brief the issues. After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that both of these motions filed by the Crespos should be denied.

Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Marty Dale Williams and his co-defendant, Daryl Lee Madden, were convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and second degree murder. The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction with the felony murder conviction. Madden received an effective sentence of life plus 25 years; Petitioner received an effective sentence of life. On direct appeal, a panel of this court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. See State v. Madden, 99 S.W.3d 127 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which the trial court subsequently denied after a hearing. Petitioner now appeals from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in finding that Petitioner failed to establish that his trial counsel was per se ineffective and that trial counsel was ineffective under the totality of the circumstances. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The appellants, Kaitlyn Calaway and Kathleen Calaway, filed a motion for rehearing of the opinion of this Court issued February 21, 2006. In their petition, the appellants request that the Court give prospective application of the newly announced rule to cases involving injuries occurring after December 9, 2005, rather than to cases commenced after this date.

Upon due consideration, we conclude that the appellants’ petition is not well-taken and should be denied.

Also before the Court is a motion to rehear filed by the appellee, Dr. Jodi Schucker. Appellee argues violation of her Due Process rights on two grounds: (1) that she was not given the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s motion to rehear on the matter of prospective application and (2) that prospective application of the new rule in a manner consistent with Due Process requires this Court to balance the appellant’s reliance interest on the old rule against the appellee’s vested property
interest in the new rule.

After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that this motion filed by the appellee should be denied.

Justices Anderson and Holder adhere to the views previously expressed in their previously filed dissent.

The Appellant, Richard D. Wiggins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. Wiggins pled guilty to attempted especially aggravated robbery and, as provided by the plea agreement, received an eight-year split confinement sentence requiring service of one year in the county jail followed by seven years probation. On appeal, Wiggins contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to trial counsel's ineffectiveness in: (1) failing to have Wiggins evaluated for mental competency; (2) failing to fully investigate the case; (3) advising Wiggins how to answer the trial court's questions during the plea colloquy; and (4) failing to fully explain the nature and consequences of his guilty plea. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In this capital case, the defendant, William Glenn Rogers, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, rape of a child, and two counts of criminal impersonation in connection with the 1996 abduction, rape, and murder of nine-year-old Jacqueline Beard. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder conviction. Based on four aggravating circumstances, the jury imposed a sentence of death for the murder. The trial court sentenced Rogers to an effective sentence of fortyeight years for the other convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On automatic appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(a)(1), we designated the following issues for oral argument:¹ 1) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress Rogers’ statements to law enforcement officers; 2) whether the trial court erred in supplementing the appellate record with mental health and social services records pertaining to the victim’s brother, Jeremy Beard; 3) whether the trial court violated Rogers’ constitutional rights by limiting cross-examination of Jeremy Beard; 4) whether the trial court committed harmful error in its instruction defining “intentionally”; 5) whether the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions for first degree murder, kidnapping, and rape; 6) whether the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravating circumstances; and 7) whether the sentence of death is disproportionate or invalid under the mandatory review of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1). Having carefully reviewed these issues and the remainder of the issues raised by Rogers, we conclude that they do not warrant relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Appellant, Simon Avalos Villagomez, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Villagomez argues that his guilty plea for felony possession of seventy pounds or more of marijuana for resale was not knowing and voluntary due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.