SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Evans vs. Steelman
01S01-9701-JV-00019
Trial Court Judge: Shookhoff

TN. Consumer Advocate vs. TN. Regulatory Authority
01S01-9706-BC-00141

Coleman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Huddleston
01S01-9706-CH-00143

Hazel Coln and Carl Coln vs. City of Savannah, TN
02S01-9702-CV-00008
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

Shoffner vs. Tuttle
03S01-9610-CH-00105
Trial Court Judge: Billy Ray White

State vs. Ronnie Michael Cauthern
02S01-9612-CC-00108

State vs. Ronnie Michael Cauthern
02S01-9612-CC-00108
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

03S01-9704-CV-00037
03S01-9704-CV-00037

Swafford, M.D., vs. Harris, et. al.
01S01-9612-FD-00248

In re: Francis E. Dichtel
01S01-9506-BP-00101

Northland Ins. Co. vs. State
M1998-00307-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
The issue in this case is whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against the State of Tennessee for contribution and indemnity. The jurisdiction of the Claims Commission is set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307. That statute allows for suits against the State in the Claims Commission alleging that state employees have maintained a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway. The statute, however, does not mention contribution and indemnity suits as part of the Commission's jurisdiction. Because of the principle that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unmistakable, we conclude that the State has not consented to hear contribution and indemnity claims. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the appellant's claim.

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey
03S01-9610-CR-00096
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard Baumgardner

We granted interlocutory review in this death penalty case to
determine whether the trial court’s orders compelling the defendant to undergo a
mental examination in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c), and requiring
disclosure to the prosecution of material related to the examination, violated the
right to counsel or the right against self-incrimination under the United States or
Tennessee Constitutions.

State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Martin
01S01-9611-CR-00225
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

A jury convicted the defendant, Henry Lee Martin, of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. We granted review to determine whether Tenn. R. Evid., Rule 613(b) mandates that a foundation be laid prior to the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We hold that extrinsic evidence remains inadmissible until: (1) the witness is asked whether the witness made the prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the witness denies or equivocates as to having made the prior inconsistent statement.

Page G. Stuart v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Safety
01-S-01-9612-CH-00239
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Gilcrease, Jr.

During a wide-ranging investigation, law enforcement officers located and seized several items of property thought to be used in the conduct of an illegal drug enterprise. Criminal charges followed the several seizures, and Page Stuart, the appellant, pleaded guilty to offenses involving delivery and conspiracy to deliver large quantities of marijuana. The State thereafter instituted administrative proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-201 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1992) for the forfeiture of the property seized. Although Stuart challenged the forfeiture of some of the property,1 he was not successful, and both the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture. We granted Stuart’s application for review under Rule 11

Sandra Sanders v. David W. Lanier and State of Tennessee - Concurring
02S01-9706-CH-00060
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge William H. Inman

The issue with which we are confronted is whether the State may be liable to a county employee for employment discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA") when the county employee is under the  supervision of a state judge who commits quid pro quo sexual harassment against the county employee. The trial court answered the question in the negative holding that the State was not the plaintiff's employer under the THRA. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the THRA imposed liability on the State under an economic realities test. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm as modified the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's judgment.

Geneva Grahl vs. Lillie Davis, Et al
03S01-9701-CV-00011

State vs. Hoxie
03S01-9706-CR-00061

State vs. Grapel Simpson
02S01-9702-CC-00010

State vs. Irwin
03S01-9702-CC-00021

State vs. Vineyard
03S01-9612-CR-00120

Samuelson vs. Totty
01S01-9702-CV-00025

Franklin Jones vs. Sterling Last Corp.
02S01-9606-CH-00057

State vs. Glenn Bernard Mann
02S01-9609-CC-00077

01S01-9705-CV-00100
01S01-9705-CV-00100

Henley vs. State
01S01-9703-CC-00056
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond