APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Rodney Williams, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction for aggravated robbery. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and insists that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the victim's pretrial and in-court identification. We affirm.

This appeal involves a dismissal in circuit court of a general sessions appeal for failure of plaintiff-appellant to obtain a trial date within 45 days of the appeal pursuant to local rule of court. After the trial court's dismissal, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Tenn.R.Civ.P., Rules 59 and 60, which motion was denied. Plaintiff has appealed. We reverse and remand.

This case involves a petition to change custody. The parents were divorced in July 1998. By agreement, custody of the parties' two minor children was awarded to the mother. In February 2001, while the children were staying with the father at the mother's request, he filed a petition to modify custody to make him the permanent custodial parent. In his petition, the father alleged a material change in circumstances, in that the mother had difficulty keeping a job, maintaining a home, and taking care of the children. The trial court granted the father's petition. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court did not err in finding a material change in circumstances and did not abuse its discretion in changing custody to the father.

This appeal involves a suit by an attorney against a former client for attorney fees allegedly due when the client terminated contingency fee contracts. The trial court denied plaintiff-attorney's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant-client's motion for summary judgment, holding that the attorney was not entitled to recover fees for services provided to the client prior to discharge. Plaintiff has appealed. We reverse and remand.

This case involves a traffic accident and the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. Plaintiff's vehicle was struck after Defendant failed to yield at an intersection. Defendant contended that the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) was partially at fault for its failure to properly warn motorists of the upcoming intersection. After Plaintiff and Defendant settled their suit, Defendant pursued a claim against Metro. The trial court granted Metro's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Metro was entitled to governmental immunity. We vacate the trial court's award of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of the mother of two young children on multiple grounds, including the mother's inability to meet their special needs. The mother argued on appeal that the grounds for termination were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff/seller to enforce an agreement made as an addendum to a contract for sale of a home purporting to give a mortgage to the seller. We find that both parties acted with unclean hands. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of driving under the influence, third offense, and driving on a revoked license. He appeals only his DUI conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was under the influence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Kevin Island appeals from his Shelby County conviction of robbery. He claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree and affirm.

The petitioner originally pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and second offense driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The effective sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging an unknowing guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the petition based solely upon the guilty plea transcript. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.