APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves an inmate’s challenge to the denial of his application for parole by the Tennessee Board of Paroles. After serving approximately ten years ofa 35-year sentence for aggravated rape, the inmate filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Tennessee Board of Paroles was illegally and arbitrarily declining to honor his plea bargain agreement. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and because it was not timely filed. The inmate has appealed pro se. We concur that the petition was not timely filed and affirm its dismissal in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1

The Defendant, Michael Brent Cook, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the Sumner County Criminal Court. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his proba tion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Martin R. Craddock, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. He is presently in the custody of the Department of Correction serving a Range I sentence of ten years for his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in 1995. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment for aggravated sexual battery fails to allege the mens rea for the offense. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Michael T. Keen, the Defendant, appeals as of right following his sentencing hearing in the Sum ner County Criminal Court. Defendant was indicted for vehicular homicide and DUI, second offense. In an agreement with the State, Defendant pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, and agreed to an eight (8) year sentence, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sente nce. Following his sentencing hearing, the trial court orde red Defendant to serve eight (8) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant an alterna tive sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff, Robert E. Mayers, acting pro se in this medical malpractice action, appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Davidson County denying his application for relief under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02 from a final summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants.

The defendant, Sheryl L. Pendergrass, appeals a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(I), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the Sumner County Criminal Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to three drug offenses, subject to reservation of the certified question. In her certified question, the defendant contends that law enforcement officers infringed on her rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves an exclusion in an automobile liability policy for a person operating the automobile without a reasonable belief that that person is entitled to do so. The Circuit Court of Davidson County dismissed the insurance company’s action for a declaratory judgment. We reverse, and declare that the exclusion precluded coverage by the company.

This appeal involves an interstate contract dispute over ten pairs of emu chicks. Two Tennessee residents declined to honor their contract to purchase the chicks after the Arkansas breeders attempted to substitute chicks different from those advertised for sale. The breeders filed a breach of contract suit in Arkansas against the purchasers seeking to recover the unpaid purchase price, and the purchasers filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County seeking to recover their down payment as well as treble damages and attorney’s fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After the breeders obtained a judgment in Arkansas against the purchasers, they moved to dismiss the purchasers’ Tennessee lawsuit on the ground that the Arkansas judgment was res judicata to the purchasers’ Tennessee claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the purchasers’ claims. On this appeal, the purchasers assert that the Arkansas judgment should not have precluded them from pursuing their Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims in Tennessee. We agree because the Arkansas court did not have the power to award the full measure of relief the purchasers are seeking in the Tennessee proceedings.
 

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code3 Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The employer, Modine Manufacturing Company, Inc., has appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding the employee, Jamia B. Gardner, 80% permanent partial disability to each arm.  The trial court dismissed the case against the Second Injury Fund. On appeal the employer contends (1) there was no evidence of a permanent injury to the employee’s left arm, (2) the award of 80% to each arm was excessive and (3) the trial court was in error in dismissing the case against the Second Injury Fund.  The Second Injury Fund also contends the awards of disability are not supported by the evidence but insists the court was correct in holding it was not liable for payment of benefits.

After a 1996 divorce by the Circuit Court of Davidson County the husband filed an independent damages action in the chancery court, alleging that the wife fraudulently induced him to enter into the divorce settlement. The wife filed a Rule 60.02 motion in the divorce court seeking a declaration that she was not guilty of fraud. The divorce court ruled that the chancery court was bound by the circuit court’s judgment and that the husband must pay $2500 in attorney’s fees to the wife for services in the Rule 60.02 motion. We reverse.

We granted this appeal to determine whether an employer is entitled to an offset of long-term disability payments against a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability. A 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 permits offsets against workers’ compensation benefits for payments made to an employee under an employer-funded disability plan. The plaintiff’s injury pre-dated the effective date of the statute. We hold that the amendment is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset in this case.