APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The Defendant, James Erskin McCullough, pled guilty to various offenses, and, while he was on probation for these convictions, a probation violation report was filed, stating that the Defendant failed to report to his probation officer and was arrested for theft. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation, and it ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to revoke the Defendant's probation, and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

This interlocutory appeal involves a plaintiff who was injured while helping the contractor building his house cut a board. The sole issue concerns whether the contractor is equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to the plaintiff's claims. The trial court determined that, by paying the plaintiff $10,000 for his medical expenses, the contractor's insurance company induced the plaintiff to believe the matter would be settled amicably without the necessity of a lawsuit. Thus, the trial court denied the contractor's motion for summary judgment, but granted the contractor an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We concur with the trial court that an interlocutory appeal will prevent needless, expensive and protracted litigation. We also agree that summary judgment is not appropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist. However, the trier of fact should decide whether the $10,000 payment induced the plaintiff to believe that the matter would be settled amicably, and, therefore, we vacate the trial court's order to the extent it makes specific findings with regard to the plaintiff's beliefs stemming from the $10,000 payment.

This case involves the conversion of personal property. For several years, the plaintiff son stored various types of equipment in a pole barn located on his mother’s property. The mother decided to sell her property and, in preparation for the sale, she hired the defendant scrap dealer to clear out the pole barn and sell its contents. The scrap dealer cleared out the pole barn and sold the son’s equipment for a total of $657. After the son learned of this, he sued his mother and the scrap dealer, claiming that they converted his property and asserting that the property was worth $22,000 if purchased new. After a trial, the trial court held that the mother and the scrap dealer had converted the son’s equipment, but awarded him $657 in damages, the salvage value of the property. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the son failed to submit proof of the actual value of the property at the time of the conversion.

The Defendant, Roland R. Smith, was convicted by a jury of nine counts of statutory rape and three counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years on each of the statutory rape convictions and eleven years on each of the sexual exploitation convictions. The sentences were ordered to be served in such fashion as to result in an effective term of seventeen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: 1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support certain of his convictions of statutory rape; 2) whether certain of the Defendant's convictions must be reversed under the doctrine of election of offenses; 3) whether certain of the Defendant's convictions violate principles of double jeopardy; 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to sever some of the offenses; and 5) whether the Defendant's sentence is excessive. We reverse and remand for retrial the Defendant's convictions of statutory rape arising out of Counts Four, Five, Eight and Nine. We reverse and dismiss the Defendant's conviction of statutory rape arising out of Count Six. The Defendant's effective sentence is thereby modified to fifteen years. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

We granted review of this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the defendant was sufficiently advised of the consequences of refusing to take a breath-alcohol test. The arresting officer informed the defendant that his license would be suspended for one year if he refused the test, but under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(a) (2000) in effect at the time, the penalty was two years. The trial court held that the defendant was not sufficiently advised of the consequences and barred the State from seeking any suspension of the defendant's driver's license. The trial court also barred the State from arguing to the jury on the DUI charge that the defendant had refused the breath test. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was adequately advised of the consequences for refusing the test. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals on the separate grounds set forth herein. We hold that although the State may request suspension of Collins' license, the State may not seek a suspension of longer than one year because Collins was incorrectly advised of the consequences of refusing to take the test.

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 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.

This is a negligent construction case involving a statute of repose. The defendant developer bought the residential lot in question in 1992. The developer hired the defendant subcontractor to remove trees and perform the grading work necessary to make the lot suitable for the construction of a house. In 1993, the developer sold the lot to the defendant construction company, which constructed a house on the lot. In 1994, the construction company sold the lot and the house to purchasers not party to this litigation. In 1997, the purchasers sold the house to the plaintiffs in this case. A few weeks after the plaintiffs moved into the house, they noticed cracks in the walls and abnormal settling of the house. In April 2000, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the construction company and the subcontractor for negligent construction of the house and negligent grading of the lot. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the four-year statute of repose set out in T.C.A. § 28-3-202. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on that statute. The plaintiffs now appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment only as to the defendant subcontractor. We affirm.
 

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.

We granted this appeal to determine the constitutionality of a Knoxville city ordinance regulating the location of adult businesses. The chancery court upheld the ordinance and enjoined operation of the defendant’s video store after finding that it fit the definition of an adult bookstore and was located within 1,000 feet of prohibited areas and therefore was operating in violation of the ordinance. The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the ordinance’s definition of adult bookstores is unconstitutionally vague. Because we have also determined that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals but on the separate grounds set forth herein. We remand to the trial court for an assessment of the amount of damages incurred by the defendant as a   result of the chancery court’s injunction.

The issue presented in this case is whether a covenant not to compete is enforceable between a physician and his former employer, a private medical clinic. The trial court concluded that the noncompete agreement was enforceable and enjoined the physician from establishing a medical practice at a location within the restricted area. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that the non-compete agreement was enforceable, but reversed the grant of the temporary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court for further determinations with respect to the agreement’s “buyout” provision. After a thorough review of the issues presented, including considerations of public policy, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment. We hold that except for those specifically prescribed by statute, physicians’ covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void.

Tim Lewallen and Marietta Lewallen ("Plaintiffs") sued J.C. York, Jr. ("Defendant") claiming, in part, that Defendant was interfering with their lawful right to use an easement over Defendant's land. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, "[t]hat an easement exists which runs with the land and burdens the defendant's property . . . ," and that Plaintiffs "have the use and benefit of the aforementioned easement for the purpose of ingress and egress." Defendant appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in holding that Plaintiffs have an easement over Defendant's land, and also that the Trial Court erred in considering parol evidence regarding the easement. We affirm.

The Appellant, Kenneth Hayes, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Davidson County Criminal Court. In 1997, Hayes pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine and was sentenced to a term of eight years with service of one year in confinement followed by supervised probation. In 2004, a probation violation warrant was issued alleging that Hayes violated probation by possessing cocaine. At the revocation hearing, Hayes sought suppression of the cocaine upon grounds that it was illegally seized. The trial court found that the police search was valid and revoked Hayes' suspended sentence. After review, we conclude that the cocaine was illegally seized. Notwithstanding, we further conclude that in the absence of police harassment or that the evidence was obtained in a particularly offensive manner, the exclusionary rule is not applicable to probation revocation proceedings. Accordingly, the order of revocation is affirmed.

The petitioner, Archie L. Miller, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his three 2002 convictions of selling cocaine. The post-conviction court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition, and the court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, the court found that the petitioner failed to establish the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and denied post-conviction relief. We affirm the action of the post-conviction court.

Pursuant to the provisions of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility ("the Board") appeals from an order of the Chancery Court for Knox County imposing the sanction of public censure upon James L. Milligan, Jr., Esq. ("Milligan"). The Board contends that the Chancery Court erred in concluding that: (1) Milligan did not misappropriate funds; (2) Milligan's use of a client's funds for personal purposes was not a serious violation; and (3) public censure is the appropriate sanction. Because we conclude that Milligan did misappropriate funds and did otherwise conduct himself in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, as will be hereinafter detailed, we have determined that suspension for a period of two years is appropriate.

The defendant, David Wayne Fountain, appeals from the Rhea County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. Because the record supports the revocation of probation, we affirm the revocation; however, to avoid a length of confinement that exceeds the defendant’s release eligibility as a Range I offender, we modify the post-revocation terms of the manner of service of the defendant’s two-year sentence.

The Defendant, Jason Ray Taylor, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, burglary, two counts of vandalism and three counts of forgery. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief; this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a collection action. The defendant corporation owned an automotive repair shop. In order to obtain a line of credit to purchase automobile parts from the plaintiff auto parts supply company, the sole shareholder of the defendant corporation signed a personal guaranty. After the corporation had incurred about $20,000 on its line of credit, the plaintiff supply  company filed this lawsuit against the corporation and the individual shareholder to recover that debt. The shareholder argued that, before the debt was incurred, he sold the business to a third party and canceled his personal guaranty on the debt of the corporation. The trial court rejected that argument and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against both the corporation and the shareholder. The shareholder now appeals. We affirm, concluding that holding the shareholder liable for the debt of the corporation is appropriate under these circumstances, regardless of  whether his personal guaranty remained intact.