APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Richard L. Hollow, Trustee (“Plaintiff”) sued Beulah Butler with regard to a boundary line dispute. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the common boundary line between Plaintiff’s real property and Ms. Butler’s real property is as shown on a September 17, 2003 survey prepared by Plaintiff’s surveyor, James Ogle, and that Ms. Butler had not proven adverse possession, laches, or gross laches. Ms. Butler appeals to this Court. We affirm.

The Defendant-Appellant, Steven Daniel Pack, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Coffee County to driving under the influence, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. He was sentenced to eleven months and twentynine days for driving under the influence, third offense, all of which was suspended after service of 180 days in confinement. In regard to the driving on a revoked license conviction, Pack was sentenced to six months, all of which was suspended after service of 60 days in confinement. These sentences were to be served consecutively. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, Pack reserved as a certified question of law whether there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop and detention of the defendant as required by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jefferson County, Tennessee filed a petition against Margaret Vance Smith, seeking to recover possession of the unexecuted marriage license issued to David (“Davy”) Crockett and Margaret Elder by the county’s clerk in 1805. The action was filed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-504, which prohibits the destruction of, tampering with, or fabrication of government records. The trial court entered a final judgment against Mrs. Smith, ordering the immediate return of the marriage license to Jefferson County. Mrs. Smith appealed. We affirm as modified.

This is a divorce case. The husband appeals, challenging the trial court’s determinations regarding the classification of property and the valuation and distribution of the marital assets. Wife raises additional issues concerning the property classification and attorney fees. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

A Hardin County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Joseph Steele, for rape of a child less than thirteen years of age. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because the State had allegedly lost or destroyed a videotape of the victim’s interview with Michigan Children’s Services. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the indictment, and the State now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Defendant’s indictment without discussing the relevant factors required by State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court to reconsider and make findings of fact regarding whether dismissal of the Defendant’s indictment is appropriate in light of Ferguson.

An employee settled his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The settlement stated that the award of vocational disability benefits to which the parties agreed was not based on the medical impairment rating of either the treating physician or the employee’s independent medical examiner. After the employee was laid off, he sought reconsideration of his benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iv) (2008). The chancery court declined to use the impairment rating of the treating physician or the independent medical examiner. The court further declined to base its increased award on a rating from an independent medical evaluation of the employee conducted after the settlement by a physician listed in the Medical Impairment Rating registry of the Tennessee Department of Labor. The chancery court instead awarded additional permanent partial disability benefits based on an impairment rating computed from the percentage of permanent partial disability reflected in the settlement. The employer appealed. We affirm the chancery court.

Plaintiff Husband appeals the trial court’s order awarding him no visitation with the parties’ children, its classification and award of property to Mother, and the award of attorney’s fees to mother. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the trial court to set visitation.

Appellant appealed the trial court’s order granting a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

This appeal involves a claim against a bank for conversion. The decedent signed a durable power of attorney appointing his nephew as his attorney-in-fact. Both the decedent and the nephew had accounts at the defendant bank. Using the power of attorney, the nephew endorsed checks made payable to the decedent and deposited them into his own bank accounts at the defendant bank. By the time the decedent died a few months later, the nefarious nephew had almost completely depleted the decedent’s estate. The estate of the decedent and the decedent’s wife filed this lawsuit against the bank. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, based on the statutory immunity granted to banks for recognizing a power of attorney in T.C.A.§ 45-2-707(d). The plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the immunity statute is inapplicable because her claim arose under the UCC, T.C.A. §§ 47-3-307 and 47-3-420. We reverse, finding that T.C.A. § 45-2-707 is inapplicable to the transactions at issue in this appeal.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(3)(3) (2008) for a hearing and report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal involves a dispute regarding the type and amount of temporary benefits an employee working two jobs is entitled to following an injury at one of the employee’s jobs. After sustaining a work-related injury that required the employee to discontinue one but not both of his jobs, the employee filed suit in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County. After the trial court awarded temporary total disability benefits, the employer appealed and asserted that the employee was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits because he continued to work at his second job. We conclude that the employee is entitled to temporary partial, rather than temporary total, disability benefits and remand the case to the trial court to determine the amount of these benefits.

In 2007, the Defendant, John Eric Garvin, Jr., pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault, but the trial court suspended the entry of his judgment of conviction and placed the Defendant on judicial diversion for a term of three years. The Defendant subsequently violated the terms of his diverted sentence by, among other things, possessing a Schedule II drug, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, and driving on a suspended license, second offense. The Defendant pled guilty to each of these offenses and admitted violating the terms of his diversion. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of two years for his reckless aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve nine additional years for the offenses he committed while on diversion, ordering those sentences to be served consecutively to his two-year sentence for reckless aggravated assault. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his total effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his request for alternative sentencing. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant of solicitation of a minor to commit rape of a child, a Class B felony; driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony; and indecent exposure, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years, two years, and six months, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the solicitation of a minor conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal for a non-final judgment entered by the trial court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant, Danny Osborne, pled guilty to promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a schedule II controlled substance, and criminal impersonation. As a result, he received a two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Appellant was subsequently released to probation. One month later, a warrant was issued for violation of probation. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of the original sentence in confinement. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where there was substantial evidence to support the revocation of probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Erik Guerrero, of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, and nine counts of attempted first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals his conviction claiming that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed proof of the Defendant’s gang membership to be admitted into evidence at trial; (3) the trial court erred when it allowed a recorded telephone conversation between the Defendant and a co-defendant to be admitted into evidence at trial; (4) the trial court erred when it allowed the Defendant’s statements made at the scene of the crime to be admitted into evidence at trial; and (5) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury as to the natural and probable consequences rule. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Nelson Troglin, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to 23 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends (1) that the trial court erred in failing to admonish the jury, instructing the jury to reach a verdict before the July 4th holiday, and in failing to sentence him in open court; (2) that the post-conviction court erred in denying his motion to recuse and his motion for funds to obtain a ballistics expert; and (3) that trial counsel was ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Driver of a sedan was given citations for not having the certificate of public convenience and license necessary to operate a taxicab. The citations were upheld by the general sessions and circuit courts. Driver appeals, claiming that his sedan is not a taxi and that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. We affirm.

A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Charlie B. York, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), and the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the implied consent law with a prior DUI conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction, fifteen days of which were to be served in jail, with the remainder on probation. For the implied consent violation, the trial court suspended the Defendant’s driver’s license for two years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced him to more than the mandatory minimum sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

In 1990 a Shelby County jury convicted, the Petitioner, John Michael Bane, of felony murder and imposed a sentence of death. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Bane, 853 S.W.2d 483 (Tenn. 1993). After a new sentencing hearing, the jury again imposed a sentence of death, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s imposition of this sentence. State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411 (Tenn. 2001). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, contending that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his original trial and at his resentencing hearing; (2) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury; and (3) the death penalty is unconstitutional. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

In this action alleging retaliatory discharge, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6). The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment, holding that the amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. We address the issue of the proper standard for Tennessee courts to apply in ruling on a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). We decline to adopt the new Twombly/Iqbal “plausibility” pleading standard and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of three petitions for writ of certiorari for review of his disciplinary conviction for assault while incarcerated at the South Central Correctional Facility. The trial court dismissed the action based on Petitioner’s failure to adhere to the statutory verification requirements in his petitions. Petitioner appealed. We affirm.

An individual took his automobile to an auto parts company, apparently to sell it for parts. The individual alleged that he had electronics and baseball cards in the automobile that were stolen at the auto parts company. The trial court dismissed the complaint without making findings of fact, and the individual appealed. The record contains the exhibits introduced at trial but no transcript of the proceedings or deposition testimony. Without a record of the proceedings from the lower court to review, we are unable to reverse the trial court or provide the appellant with the relief he seeks. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint.

The Petitioner, Eric Dewayne McLemore, appeals from the habeas corpus court’s order denying his petition. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the order of the habeas corpus court.

Inmate filed a legal malpractice action against the attorney who represented him in the direct appeal of his criminal conviction for aggravated robbery. Three years later, the trial court dismissed the inmate’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. We affirm the result reached by the trial court because the denial of the inmate’s petition for post-conviction relief precludes his claim for legal malpractice.

A Sevier County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kevin Allen Gentry, of twelve counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the charges should be dismissed because the State “held back” the indictment in the instant case in violation of Rule 8(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because of an invalid search warrant, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and that the trial court erred in sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.