APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I fully concur in Judge Cantrell's opinion. I have read with much interest Judge Koch's dissenting opinion. The matters set forth in the dissenting opinion might make good public policy, but the setting of public policy is not a matter for this court or any court in Tennessee.

These consolidated cases arise from the efforts of appellants, Lewis Laska and John Jay Hooker, to have their names placed on the ballot for the August 1, 1996, statewide election to the office of Supreme Court  Justice. The deadline for filing nominating petitions for this election was 12:00 noon on May 16, 1996, in accordance with T.C.A. § 2-5-101.

The appellant, John Russell Turner, appeals from his conviction by a jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The Circuit Court of Blount County sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the county jail and suspended all but five days. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support a conviction, because the State failed to prove that he intended to operate a vehicle.

The appellant, John Russell Turner, appeals from his conviction by a juryfor driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The Circuit Court of Blount County sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the county jail and suspended all but five days. On appeal, theappellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support a conviction, because the State failed to prove that he intended to operate a vehicle.

In this action for damages for personal injuries to the deceased, the complaint alleged the deceased was placed in a room while in defendant hospital, and on April 18, 1991, she ws found lying on the floor with injuries about her head and face. It was further alleged that it was not learned until wll after her death, in conversation with the physicians of the plaintiff decedent, that the decedent more likely would have survived for many years had she not fallen...

This appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court which, among other things, awarded a divorce to the defendant, provided for custody of the parties' minor children and made a division of the marital estate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Joy Badenhope is the child of Susan Badenhope and Arthur Blair.  Susan Badenhope, a resident of North Carolina, died when the child was less than one year old.  After her death, Joy began residing with her maternal grandmother, Marilyn Badenhope, in Tennessee.  The grandmother was granted custody by a North Carolina court in an action for custody she filed some two months after the mother's death.  The father soon thereafter moved to Tennessee and filed an action in Tennessee to increase visitation and attain custody.

In this divorce action the Trial Court awarded to each party an absolute divorce from the other on the grounds of  inappropriate marital conduct. The Court awarded the custody of the parties' two minor children to the mother, ordered the father to pay child support and based upo the guidelihes, and in dividing the parties' marital estate  concluded that their home was a gift from the husband's paretns to him alone, and therefore separate property. From this latter determination, the wife has appealed.

The defendant, Brian K. Collins, was convicted of violating a habitual traffic offender order, violation of registration, and evading arrest. He was sentenced as a range one offender to two years for violating the order, thirty days for violation of registration, and eleven months and twenty nine days for evading arrest, all to be served concurrently. This is his appeal of right.

In this post-divorce proceeding, the Chancellor found that certain assets owned by Albert Chadwell at the time of the parties' divorce were marital assets and that his former wife, Fay Louise Taylor Chadwell, was entitled to a judgment against him of $94,320, which included the interest from the date of the divorce. The Chancellor also impressed a lien against certain real estate originally owned by Mr. Chadwell, who later purported to transfer an interest to his present wife. Both the real estate and the home Mr. Chadwell erected thereon were paid for in part with the assets in dispute in this appeal.

After a thorough review of the record and authority, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the petitions. The trial court’s judgments are reversed, and these cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.