APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The second appeal in this case involves the effect of a previous forum non conveniens dismissal. The plaintiffs, residents and citizens of Mexico, were injured in automobile accidents that took place in Mexico. They filed multiple lawsuits against several American corporate defendants, alleging that the accidents were the result of defects in the vehicles’ tires. The corporate defendants moved for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motions, and the defendants were granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the consolidated case on the ground of forum non conveniens, based on the availability of Mexico as a more convenient forum for litigation of the plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits in several Mexican trial courts. These cases were all dismissed, and the dismissals were affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs then filed new lawsuits in Davidson County Circuit Court against the same defendants, which were again consolidated for pretrial purposes. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on grounds of issue preclusion, arguing that the issues of forum non conveniens and the availability of Mexico as an available alternate forum had been determined in their favor in the first appeal. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Mexico was not, in fact, an available forum, as evidenced by the numerous dismissals by the Mexican tribunals. The defendants were granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, we address the effect of our previous decision and vacate the order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings on the availability of Mexico as an alternate forum for the plaintiffs’ claims.

This appeal involves the interpretation of a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association. The declaration made the developer a member of the homeowners’ association, insofar as the developer owned lots within the development. It also stated that the obligation to pay assessments on a given lot did not begin until either the lot was transferred from the developer or improvements on the lot were completed, whichever occurred first. The homeowners’ association sued the developer, seeking damages for unpaid assessments on lots owned by the developer, on which improvements were not complete. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the homeowners’ association. The developer appeals. We reverse, concluding that the declaration of covenants provides that the obligation to pay assessments on the lots owned by the developer had not yet commenced.

The plaintiffs brought this action seeking the removal of several Knox County officials from office on the ground that they were ineligible for their positions by operation of the term limits provision of the Knox County Charter. Six days after the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Jordan v. Knox County. The Supreme Court in its Jordan opinion, released on January 12, 2007, decided all issues raised in the case before us. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis of mootness.

The defendant, Gordon McGee, Jr., was indicted by the Warren County grand jury for simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and applied for pretrial diversion. The state denied the application and the defendant sought certiorari review by the trial court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted certiorari and ordered the state to enter into a memorandum of understanding granting pretrial diversion to the defendant. The state appeals as of right the order of the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Tryphena Nicole Jones, pled guilty to possession of cocaine and failure to appear, both Class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This lawsuit challenges actions by the Cleveland Municipal Airport Authority (the “Airport Authority”) and the Bradley County Commission (the “Commission”) involving the rezoning by the Commission of certain property located in Bradley County from Forestry Agricultural Residential to Special Impact Industrial. The Airport Authority intends to relocate the Cleveland Municipal Airport to the rezoned property. Frankie Lewis originally filed this lawsuit and Herbert Haney was added later as a plaintiff. As pertinent to this appeal, the Trial Court determined that Lewis lacked taxpayer standing to bring this lawsuit against the Airport Authority and granted the Airport Authority’s motion to dismiss. Lewis appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Airport Authority. As to the Commission, both plaintiffs allege statutory and procedural violations surrounding notice of the requested rezoning and the conduct of the Commission in eventually granting the request for rezoning. The Trial Court granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment after concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the Commission was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Both Lewis and Haney appeal that summary judgment. We conclude that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Airport Authority’s motion to dismiss and the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the Trial Court is, therefore, affirmed.

The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reopen post-conviction petition. The trial court properly concluded that the Appellant cannot prevail on the claims asserted in the two pleadings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Raymond McNeil, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of Class D felony evading arrest, alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence at trial. The defendant challenges neither his conviction of driving on a revoked license nor his 12-year effective sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief. Although the majority has performed an admirable analysis of the present cases on the subject, I am of the opinion that the various principles derived from these opinions are in conflict and, absent a reconciliation, the Petitioner is entitled to relief. Because the record of the proceedings demonstrates that after the jury verdict, the trial court directly contravened statute by imposing a Range III, persistent offender sentence, I would grant habeas corpus relief and remand to the sentencing court for the imposition of a Range II sentence.

I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I question, though, whether we can firmly say that the victim’s saying, “No, No,” and “Mommy hit me” was sufficiently relevant and not too prejudicial in the context of the trial.

We granted the plaintiff’s application for permission to appeal in this wrongful death case to determine whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to each of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Although the parties have raised  several issues in this appeal, the central issue is the nature of the legal duty, if any, owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent. The decedent was socializing and consuming alcohol with the defendants. While riding in a four-door pick-up truck with the defendants, he became ill. The defendants stopped the truck on the side of an interstate highway so the decedent could vomit. After resuming the trip, the decedent rode in the bed of the truck and, for reasons unknown, exited it. After exiting the truck, he was struck by two vehicles and subsequently died. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants placed the decedent in the bed of the truck. Similarly, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the decedent was helpless and whether the defendants took charge of him. Lastly, we hold that none of the defendants stood in any special relationship with the plaintiff’s decedent and consequently they did not assume any affirmative duty to aid or protect him. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The defendant, Erica Lynn Wyma, was convicted of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, the trial court erred in admitting a statement of the victim as an excited utterance, and her sentence is excessive.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice case after granting motions to exclude the testimony of both of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Based upon our conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of either expert witness, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Stewart County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Jason Clinard, of first degree premeditated murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1); -204 (2006). In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) not suppressing photographs of the victim, (2) allowing the State an independent psychological examination of the defendant, (3) failing to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office, and (4) following the statutory sentencing scheme that resulted in the defendant’s life sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) (Supp. 2007) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  In a previous appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed an order requiring the employer to reimburse a third-party insurer for payments made for medical care. The judgment was paid. The insurer sought post-judgment interest on the amount, and the trial court awarded that interest. The employer has appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by awarding post-judgment interest for medical expenses. We agree and reverse the judgment.

This domestic relations action requires us to construe a provision of the parties’ 1993 divorce decree with respect to the division of defendant/Appellant David P. Lout’s (Mr. Lout’s) military retirement pay. The trial court construed the 1993 decree as requiring Mr. Lout to pay to Plaintiff/Appellee Vickie F. Lout Hudson (Ms. Hudson), Mr. Lout’s former wife, an amount equivalent to 28 percent of his military retirement pay. The trial court calculated this amount as onehalf the retirement pay received by Mr. Lout, multiplied by a fraction representing the number of years the parties were married divided by the number of years Mr. Lout served in the military. The trial court also ordered Mr. Lout to pay arrearages and awarded Wife her attorney’s fees as damages predicated on a finding of contempt. Mr. Lout appeals; we affirm the trial court’s construction of  the parties’ 1993 decree of divorce, vacate the finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees, and remand.

Colonial Pipeline Company filed suit for declaratory judgment, challenging the constitutionality of specified portions of the state tax code and seeking an injunction as to the enforcement of those provisions. The Chancery Court dismissed the action, holding that the company had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We granted an application for permission to appeal and, after consideration of the issues, hold that (1) a party making a constitutional challenge to the facial validity of a statute need not exhaust its administrative remedies, and that (2) the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a suit for declaratory judgment asking state officers to be enjoined from enforcing such a statute so long as the action does not seek money damages. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I fully concur in the majority’s conclusion that Alcoa owed a duty to Ms. Satterfield to take reasonable steps to prevent her from suffering harm as a result of the risks created by the operation of Alcoa’s facility. I write separately to express my belief that any discussion of foreseeability in the context of duty encroaches upon the role of the finder of fact. In doing so, I will explain the considerations that I believe are relevant to a duty analysis. This Court has previously stated that the existence of a duty depends upon the presence

This appeal involves the efforts of the estate of a twenty-five-year-old woman who contracted mesothelioma to recover damages for her death. While she was alive, the woman filed a negligence action against her father’s employer, alleging that the employer had negligently permitted her father to wear his asbestos-contaminated work clothes home from work, thereby regularly and repeatedly exposing her to asbestos fibers over an extended period of time. After the woman died, the Circuit Court for Blount County permitted her father to be substituted as the personal representative of her estate. The employer moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the narrow ground that it owed no duty to its employee’s daughter. The trial court granted the motion. The deceased woman’s father appealed the dismissal of his daughter’s wrongful death claim. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., No. E2006-00903-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 1159416 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2007). We granted the employer’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the deceased woman’s  omplaint can withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We have determined that it does because, under the facts alleged in the complaint, the employer owed a duty to those who regularly and for extended periods of time came into close contact with the asbestos contaminated work clothes of its employees to prevent them from being exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Affirmed; Case Remanded
 

The defendant, Brian Davidson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and/or deliver, one count of possession of anhydrous ammonia, one count of possession of marijuana, two counts of possession of Hydrocodone, and two counts of possession of Alprazolam. After merging the manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine convictions, the possession of Hydrocodone convictions, and the possession of Alprazolam convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years for manufacturing methamphetamine, eighteen months for possession of anhydrous ammonia, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the convictions for possession of Hydrocodone, Alprazolam, and marijuana, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the defendant’s sentences in a federal case. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the speedy trial provision of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, in denying his motion to suppress a detective’s in-court identification of him, in denying his discovery request for the impeaching convictions of his codefendant, and in ordering that he serve his sentences consecutively to his federal sentences. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this wrongful death action the Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff was not a proper party to maintain the action. On appeal, we affirm.

This matter is before the court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  The petitioner, Barry L. Price, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the entire record, including petitioner’s Traverse To Appellee’s Answers filed on July 29, 2008, we are persuaded that the post-conviction court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s post-conviction petition. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, we grant the state’s motion, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

After more than eighteen years of marriage, Patsy Wicks Dawson (“Wife”) sued Isaac Dale Dawson (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order, inter alia, awarding Husband a divorce and distributing the marital property. Wife appeals raising an issue regarding the distribution of the marital property. We vacate the distribution of the marital property and remand this case to the Trial Court to value items of marital property as necessary to effectuate an equitable division of marital property under the facts of this case such that Husband receives 60% and Wife receives 40%. The remainder of the Trial Court’s Final Decree of Divorce is affirmed.

The defendant, Clarence Dodson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary, Class C felony, and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the respective convictions. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravated burglary conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing prior convictions for aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft of services to be used  or impeachment purposes. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of convictions.

The petitioner, Kelvin Jermaine Dowell, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by presenting two inconsistent defense theories at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.