APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted this workers' compensation appeal to address two issues: (1) whether the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment; and (2) whether the decedent was the initial aggressor; and if so, whether the aggressor doctrine precluded recovery. We find that the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment. As to the second issue, we hold the common law aggressor defense as it relates to workers' compensation claims under the Act is abolished in Tennessee and does not bar the decedent's recovery

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that a debtor cannot collateraliy attack in state court an adjudication made in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding regarding the balance due on a deb owed by the debtor-bankrupt. The judgment of the Court of appeals is affirmed as modified.

In this divorce case, the defendant-counter claimant husband has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the husband’s counterclaim; granting the wife a divorce on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct, $750 per month alimony until her death or remarriage, and $10,000.00 attorneys fees; and dividing the marital estate.

The defendants, Robert and Deborah Koch, have appealed from a non jury judgment that plaintiffs, Joseph and Gloria Gannon, have a private easement from their land across the land of
defendants for access to the public way.

Plaintiff Patty M. Richards appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants/Appellees O’Connor Management, Inc., and Russ Hackett.In entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, the trial court dismissed Richards’ claims for outrageous conduct and false imprisonment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant Harriet C. Upton, now known as Harriet Cathey, appeals the trial court’s final judgment awarding Plaintiff/Appellee James B. Oliver the sum of $15,225.66, continuing in effect the lis pendens filed against the subject property pending Cathey’s satisfaction of the judgment, denying Cathey’s request for attorney’s fees, and assessing forty percent (40%) of the costs against Cathey. We affirm the judgment in part (with modifications), reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

This somewhat protracted litigation began in August 1993 when Brian Keith Feather (Husband) filed for divorce from Dolly deKrafft Feather (Wife). A divorce decree was entered by the chancery court in September 1994, which, inter alia, dissolved the fifteen year marriage of the parties and determined custody of their four minor children. Separate orders pertaining to the case were entered by the trial court in August and October, 1995, respectively. Both parties appealed therefrom, but this Court in April 1996, determined that the parties’ respective appeals were from a nonfinal judgment. Litigation thereafter continued due to the parties’ filings of various petitions for contempt, to rehear and to modify custody. After additional hearings, the trial court entered its final judgment in December 1996 from which both parties have appealed.1 The primary issues before us concern the trial court’s decisions regarding child custody and classification and division of the marital estate. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm as modified.

I agree with the majority’s analysis in this case. However, I concur separately to emphasize
that our review, under either the common law writ of certiorari or the statutory writ, should be
limited to hearing the petitioner’s claims regarding “the illegality of acts taken by the disciplinary
board.” Williams v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction, No. 02A01-9503-CV-00046 1995 WL 575142
(Tenn. App. Oct. 2 1995). Even if the requirements of a statutory writ of certiorari are met, our
review should not include the substance of the disciplinary proceeding, i.e. whether the petitioner
actually committed the acts with which he was charged.