APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman") and Cryotech of Kingsport, Inc. ("Cryotech") entered into an agreement whereby Cryotech would purchase non-food grade feedgas from Eastman which was roughly 78% carbon dioxide ("CO2"). Cryotech then would purify the feedgas and sell it as food grade CO2. Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc. ("Messer") purchased the CO2 from Cryotech. Messer in turn sold the CO2 to soft drink manufacturers. The CO2 sold to Messer was contaminated with cyanide and resulted in property damage to Messer and Messer's customers. In the third appeal arising from this litigation, we must determine whether the Trial Court correctly granted summary judgment to Eastman on Messer's claims for breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence, and whether the Trial Court properly refused to allow Messer to amend its complaint to assert a claim for negligence per se. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The appellant, Germaine McKenzie, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of the offense of second degree murder. As a result of the conviction, the appellant was sentenced to twenty-four years, to be served at one hundred percent incarceration. The appellant appeals his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Waldo Wiggins, Jr., was convicted in the Tipton County Circuit Court of first degree murder. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court denied both petitions, and the petitioner now appeals.  Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Lucille Richardson, with the trial court’s permission, filed an interlocutory appeal, and, pursuant to the appellant’s Rule 9 application, this Court agreed to review the appellant’s appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of pretrial diversion. After reviewing the record as a whole, we
conclude that the trial court erred in denying pretrial diversion. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Patricia Ann Starkey, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to DUI, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail with all but seven days suspended. As a condition of her guilty plea, she sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in denying the evidence obtained as the result of her allegedly unlawful arrest. However, upon review of the record, we conclude that the defendant failed to properly preserve a question of law. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

This is a mother's appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her three children. Mother suffers from a cocaine addiction. She has had numerous opportunities for rehabilitation but failed to stay drug-free. At the time of trial, the children had been in foster care for two years during which time Mother only exercised token visitation. The juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights on grounds of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan. We affirm.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the circuit court erred when it granted a defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff asserts, as she did at trial, that there was a genuine issue of material fact, rendering summary judgment inappropriate. The plaintiff filed an appeal to this Court. We affirm.

Plaintiff Gloria Mastilir filed a tort action against Defendant The New Shelby Dodge arising from the Defendant’s alleged faulty repair of Plaintiff’s motor home. Plaintiff subsequently took a voluntary non-suit and later failed to refile her action within the one-year savings statute under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105. As a result, the general sessions court and circuit court held that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals arguing that the lower courts erred in  not finding that Defendant was equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitation defense and also asserts that Defendant revived Plaintiff’s suit by promising to repair or pay for repairs to Plaintiffs vehicle. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dispute between the surviving spouses of five disabled city employees and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County over the amount of life insurance benefits payable after the employees died. The surviving spouses filed three separate lawsuits asserting that the city had breached their spouses' employment contracts as well as its fiduciary duty and had committed fraud by concealing information and by knowingly providing false information regarding a waiver of premium benefit that would have greatly increased their death benefits. These suits were consolidated in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing all the surviving spouses' intentional tort claims because they were barred by the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The remaining breach of contract claims of three of the surviving spouses were tried to a jury, and the trial court directed a verdict for the city at the close of the plaintiffs' proof. Thereafter, the trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims of the other two surviving spouses. All the surviving spouses have appealed. We affirm the summary judgment orders dismissing the surviving spouses' intentional tort claims and the breach of contract claim of one surviving spouse. We reverse the directed verdict with regard to three of the remaining surviving spouses' breach of contract claims, as well as the summary judgment dismissing the other surviving spouse's breach of contract claim.

The Memphis Alcohol Commission denied Plaintiffs/Appellees’ Kardoush’s application for a certificate of compliance over 80 days after the application was filed, and Kardoush appealed to the chancery court. The trial court determined that, under Tennessee Code Annotated 57-3-208(e), the Memphis Alcohol Commission would have been deemed to have granted the application where the Commission had failed to either grant or deny the application within 60 days of submission. Thus, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 57-3-208(f), Kardoush was not required to submit a certificate of compliance with its application to the Tennessee Alcohol and Beverage Commission. We affirm.

This case arises from alleged defamatory statements made by Defendants David Smith, Vanessa Smith, and Charles Pagett, Jr. against Plaintiff Dempsey Ausley. The alleged statements were made subsequent to Ausley's termination as Pastor of Parker's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in Portland, Tennessee. Plaintiff sued the three Defendants asserting claims of slander. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's claims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims because they were too closely entangled with Plaintiff's termination as pastor, which is an ecclesiastical matter of the church. Plaintiff appealed. We reverse and remand.

The Appellant, Israel Allen Jackson, appeals the order of the Dickson County Circuit Court revoking his suspended sentences. In November 2004, Jackson received an effective eight-year sentence, which was suspended following his guilty pleas to three counts of Class C felony sale of cocaine. The eight-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a two-year term of probation, stemming from a prior drug conviction which Jackson was still serving at the time of his guilty pleas. In December 2004, a probation violation warrant was issued alleging that Jackson had violated numerous conditions of probation. Following a revocation hearing, Jackson was found in violation of probation, and his effective eight-year suspended sentence was revoked with reinstatement of his sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Jackson argues that the trial court was without authority to revoke his effective eight-year sentence as the sentence had not yet "begun to run." Additionally, he argues that the trial court erred in finding him in violation of probation. Finding these assertions without merit, the order of revocation is affirmed.

The defendant, Randall K. Bishop, was indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony. A jury convicted the defendant of facilitation of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony. The defendant was sentenced to three years as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. After careful review, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the conviction.

A Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, David Bartley Bell, of driving under the influence, third offense, and violation of the implied consent law. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, arguing the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion. After a suppression hearing, the trial court dismissed the charges against the defendant because the arresting officer was not present to testify. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against the defendant. After our review, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The Appellant, Terrance Dwain Norton, appeals the imposition of certain conditions of work release following his commitment to the Lincoln County Jail. Norton's jail confinement stems from a revocation of probation. On appeal, Norton argues that work release conditions imposed by the Lincoln County Circuit Court are "onerous" and will impede his ability to maintain his current employment. We find this argument without merit. The sentencing decision of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Mitchell Bowers, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1997. He appeals the denial of his post-conviction petitioner in which he asserted that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to advise him that he was not required to testify in his own behalf at trial, and (2) failing to disclose that counsel had previously represented the victim.  Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court; therefore, we affirm.

The petitioner, Torris Benson, was convicted in 1987 of robbery and aggravated assault and sentenced to life in prison as a habitual criminal. In a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, he claimed his habitual criminal sentence is illegal and void because the prior judgments on which the sentence was based were unsigned. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this timely appeal followed. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal.

This case involves a dispute over whether Tennessee courts have personal jurisdiction over two Michigan corporations regarding an alleged violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  The trial court found that Tennessee had personal jurisdiction over the Michigan corporations and the corporations filed an interlocutory appeal. We find that the Tennessee Long Arm Statute provides Tennessee with personal jurisdiction over the corporations and that the decision comports with the requirements of due process; therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent herewith.

This is a mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights to her oldest son and daughter.  Because we find that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s termination on three (3) alternative grounds and that termination is in the children’s best interest, we affirm.

This appeal involves post-divorce criminal contempt sanctions. The former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to hold her former husband in contempt for failing to pay spousal support and to maintain a life insurance policy and a club membership. The trial court determined that the former husband was guilty of eighteen separate acts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. After the former husband appealed the contempt sanction, the trial court stayed its order pending appeal. We have determined that the former wife failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her former husband had willfully failed to pay spousal support or to discharge his other financial obligations.

In July of 2002, Miracle Kaa Nichols ("Wife") sued James Virgil Nichols, Jr. ("Husband") for divorce. The case was tried and a Final Decree was entered in September of 2004 awarding, inter alia, Wife a divorce, and finding and holding that the real property located at 24766 Martel Road in Lenoir City, Tennessee ("the Farm") was marital property and should be divided with each party to receive "one-half the value of the land and mobile home." Husband appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in classifying the Farm as marital property, or, in the alternative, that the Trial Court erred by failing to divide the marital estate equitably. Wife also appeals the marital property division. We affirm.

Aggrieved of the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner, Mike Settle, appeals. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not pay the court costs due upon filing the petition. The state has filed a response, conceding that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to pay a filing fee. However, we disagree and affirm the order of dismissal.

The Appellant, Terrance Dwain Norton, appeals the imposition of certain conditions of work release following his commitment to the Lincoln County Jail. Norton's jail confinement stems from a revocation of probation. On appeal, Norton argues that work release conditions imposed by the Lincoln County Circuit Court are "onerous" and will impede his ability to maintain his current employment. We find this argument without merit. The sentencing decision of the trial court is affirmed.

I agree with the result reached by the majority. It is my view, however, that the trial court erred by giving the nature of circumstances definition of "knowingly" and the result of conduct definition of "intentionally" in its instructions to the jury. As indicated by the majority, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:
 

Knowingly means that a person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. The requirement of knowingly is also established if shown that the defendant acted intentionally.

Intentionally means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or the result of the conduct when it's the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct.

The defendant, Catherine May Cooper, pled guilty to one count of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by altered prescription, a Class D felony, and one count of felony failure to appear, a Class E felony. The Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced her to two years for the Class D felony and one year for the Class E felony to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying her probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.