APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a legal malpractice action. The Plaintiff alleges that she employed the defendants to reporesent her in a medical malpractice claim against Baptist Hospital of East Tennessee, Dr. Robert Hall or the proper party to be sued. Suit was brought against Baptist Hospital of East Tennessee and was, after mediation, eventually settled. Dr. Hall was not sued. The failure to bring an action against Dr. Hall is the basis of this action.

The appellant, Rogers L. McKinley, appeals the Bledsoe County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1990, the appellant entered guilty pleas and was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II multiple offender to concurrent sentences of fifteen (15) years for each rape and ten (10) years for the aggravated burglary. No direct appeal was taken from those convictions and sentences.

In this appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pivotal issue on this appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in its calculation of the gross income of the obligor for determining his child support obligation.

The plaintiffs instituted this action against Hamilton County (defendant) charging that the defendant was negligent in maintaining Levi Road in that the county allowed shrubbery to grow along the right-of-way of Levi Road which impaired the vision of persons entering upon the roadway from adjacent properties. No roadway intersection was involved in the accident. The minor plaintiff, Kohn Ashmore, entered upon Levi Road from the lawn of property owned by a Mr. Sands. After a bench trial the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. It is from this judgment that the plaintiffs' appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs, Marvin and Ellyse McCarley, appeal the summary dismissal of their complaint alleging that Mr. McCarley received food poisoning after ingesting food improperly prepared by the defendant, Kentucky Fried Chicken. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that the plaintiffs' proof was insufficient to establish the element of causation. We granted appeal to address: (1) the Court of Appeals' analysis in summary judgment dispositions; and (2) the quantum and type of proof plaintiffs must proffer to survive summary dismissal in negligent food poisoning cases. Upon review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1
 

The issue in this post-conviction death penalty appeal is whether the jury’s reliance on an invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless error, or whether resentencing is required because there is reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid aggravating factor. The jury relied on a valid aggravating factor, that the defendant had a prior conviction for a violent felony offense (second-degree murder), and an invalid aggravating circumstance, that the victim was killed during the commission of a felony.1

I dissent from the majority's holding that the jury's consideration of the invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless error.  Thos not every imperfection in the deliberative process is sufficient, even in a capital case, to set aside a ... judgement, the severity of the sentence mandates careful scrutiny in the review of any colorable claim of error.

The appellant, Freddie King (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In this court, the petitioner contends (a) his guilty pleas were not voluntarily, intelligently, and understandingly entered and (b) the trial court failed to advise him of his constitutional right against self-incrimination before questioning him during the submission hearing. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. The trial 2 court entered an order of summary judgment on behalf of Defendant, Dr. Kenneth Kudsk (“Dr. Kudsk”). Plaintiffs, Josephine Brown ( “Brown”), Whitfield Brown, and Earline Culp, appeal the judgment citing, inter alia, errors in the trial court’s granting of summary judgment when the Plaintiffs’ expert affidavits and deposition testimony were proper responsive proof to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.