APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that a gravel drive running through their property is a private easement rather than a public road. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the drive is a public road. Finding this case inappropriate for summary judgment, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for a trial on the merits.

Carter County -Robert G. Crabtree, Jr., and Bonnie K. Hakey (collectively "the plaintiffs") filed suit against Jennifer L. Lund ("the defendant") seeking compensation for personal injuries and property damage arising out of a April 22, 2005, multiple-vehicle accident in Carter County. With her answer, the defendant coupled a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 "on the basis of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process." Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with prejudice finding "that the plaintiffs have not provided to the Court any valid reason for the delay in obtaining prompt service of process upon the defendant." Plaintiffs appeal. We (1) vacate the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and (2) remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Mark Hines, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of criminal attempt to commit second degree murder. See T.C.A. __ 39-13-210(a)(1), 39-12- 101(a)(2), -(3) (2006). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years' confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce prejudicial demonstrative evidence to the jury, (3) the trial court erred by admitting testimonial hearsay into evidence, (4) the trial court erred by giving incorrect and incomplete jury instructions, and (5) he was improperly sentenced. We affirm the conviction, but we reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing.

The Petitioner, Alfred Eugene Bradley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that trial counsel was not ineffective, and the Petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this divorce action, the trial court awarded Dawn Lyn Tousignant Gordon ("Wife") 59% of the marital estate, or approximately $231,100. It also ordered Robert Frank Gordon ("Husband") to pay Wife "permanent spousal support" of $2,200 per month. Husband appeals and challenges both the division of marital property and the court's award of alimony in futuro. We modify the trial court's division of marital property and its award of alimony. As modified, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Father appeals the denial of his Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to void an order appointing a parenting coordinator. We find that the appeal is now moot.

Plaintiff, a nurse practitioner formerly employed by a staffing service and supplied to a hospital emergency department, sued the hospital for retaliatory discharge under Tennessee common law and the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-1-304. The hospital moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

This appeal arises from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in an action against a real estate appraiser for fraudulent misrepresentation and for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A husband and wife alleged that the appraiser, who was hired by the bank financing the husband and wife's home construction, recklessly overestimated the value of their proposed construction and that they reasonably relied on the appraisal value to their detriment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that an appraisal is an opinion that cannot form the basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We hold that an opinion can form the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We further hold that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment as to the husband and wife's claims against the appraiser. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The trial court found Husband guilty of two counts of criminal contempt for violation of a court order. Husband appeals the findings of contempt on the ground that he did not receive proper notice. The trial court dismissed a third count of criminal contempt without prejudice and allowed Wife to re-file her claim so as to provide Husband with proper notice. We affirm the court's two findings of contempt and reverse its dismissal of the third count of contempt, finding that Husband was given sufficient notice. We remand the matter to the court for a determination of whether Husband violated the order.

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jonathan Doran Tears, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony (Count 1); two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony (Counts 2-3); unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class E felony (Count 4); possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class D felony (Count 5); and employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony (Count 6). The trial court merged Counts 2 and 3 with Count 1, and the trial court merged Counts 4 and 5 with Count 6. The trial court then sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender and ordered the Defendant to serve 15 years for the attempted second degree murder conviction and a consecutive 10 years for the employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony conviction, for a total effective sentence of 25 years. The trial court also ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed in a separate case. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession and employment of a firearm during the commission of a felony and that (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in an action against a real estate appraiser for fraudulent misrepresentation and for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A husband and wife alleged that the appraiser, who was hired by the bank financing the husband and wife's home construction, recklessly overestimated the value of their proposed construction and that they reasonably relied on the appraisal value to their detriment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that an appraisal is an opinion that cannot form the basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We hold that an opinion can form the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. We further hold that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment as to the husband and wife's claims against the appraiser. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Petitioner, David Carl Duncan, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

The Petitioner, Korinna Stephens, appeals as of right from the order of the Knox County Criminal Court denying her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her convictions of aggravated robbery, theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, and possession of drug paraphernalia for which she received an effective sentence of twelve years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, she contends that her guilty pleas were rendered involuntarily by the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Howard J. Atkins, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that there was no newly discovered evidence and that his petition was untimely pursuant to the statute of limitations and in dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant was found in civil contempt for failure to pay child support and sentenced to serve 180 days in jail unless she purged her contempt with the payment of $2,200. Finding the evidence inadequate to support a finding that the defendant had the ability to pay child support when it was due or that she had the ability to pay $2,200 at the time of the hearing in order to purge the sentence, we reverse.

This is a divorce action. Wife asserts the trial court erred by not granting her a new trial, by declaring the parties divorced rather than awarding the divorce to her, and in its division of property, award of alimony, and by not naming her the primary residential parent and setting child support accordingly. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The petitioner, Willie J. Cunningham, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Hardeman County. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals because the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Upon our review of the petition and the applicable authorities, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary conviction. The respondents did not oppose the issuance of the writ, and a certified copy of the record of the disciplinary proceedings was filed with the trial court. The respondents then filed a motion for judgment on the record. After review of the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the trial court granted the respondents' motion for judgment on the record. The petitioner inmate appeals. We affirm, concluding that material evidence supported the conviction, and that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated.

The pro se petitioner, Louis T. Robinson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without appointing counsel or issuing any findings of fact. Following our review, we affirm the habeas court's summary dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Anthony Bernard Farr, stands convicted of (1) possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony; (2) resisting a stop and frisk, a Class B misdemeanor; and (3) criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine and that his sentence was excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This consolidated appeal involves two employees who were injured while traveling in a personal vehicle during lunchtime while going from one job site to another. The trial court held that the injuries were compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. The employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court's holding on the issue of compensability. However, we modify the trial court's ruling on the extent of disability.

A jury convicted the petitioner, Ricky Awatt, of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court upheld the conviction. The Tennessee Supreme Court subsequently denied a discretionary appeal. The petitioner now appeals the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, the petitioner argues that, although the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief has passed, the statute of limitations should be tolled, allowing him to proceed with his petition. After review, we affirm the judgment denying post-conviction relief.

The appellant, Antonio Bigsbee, was convicted by a Robertson County Circuit Court Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping and reckless endangerment. He received a total effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to present the testimony of a rebuttal witness, that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Robert Wayne Bell regarding a gun purchased by the appellant, and that the State's closing argument was improper. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Ricky Flamingo Brown, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking his judgment of conviction of aggravated rape and resulting life sentence. See T.C.A. _ 39-2-603 (1986). Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, Tommy F. Poe, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the sentences he negotiated in exchange for his guilty pleas to aggravated kidnapping are illegal because they were ordered to be served at 35% release eligibility instead of the 100% required by law. Following our review, we affirm the habeas court's dismissal of the petition.