SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Hathaway vs. First Family Financial Svcs.
01S01-9811-FD-00203
Trial Court Judge: John T. Nixon

Concrete Spaces vs. Sender
01S01-9812-CH-00224
Trial Court Judge: Cecil Crowson

Schering Plough Healthcare vs. State Bd. of Equalization
02S01-9810-CH-00096

Cleek vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
W1999-02419-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Ramsey vs. Town of Oliver Springs
03S01-9807-CH-00073

McIlvain vs. Russell Stover Candies
01S01-9709-CH-00208

Sullivan vs. Baptist Memorial Hospital
02S01-9804-CV-00032

Long vs. Tri-Con Industries
01S01-9708-CV-00176

State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wayne Edison
03S01-9803-CC-00022
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

We granted this Tenn. R. App. P. 11 appeal to determine the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s decision to admit a breath-alcohol test result under State v. Sensing, 843
S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting the test result of the defendant, Jerry Wayne Edison.1 We affirm the judgment of the intermediate appellate court and conclude that a trial court’s Sensing decision must be presumed correct on appeal unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary.

State of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Middlebrooks
01S01-9802-CR-00017
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ann Lacy Johns

This case is before us for automatic review of the Court of Criminal Appeals’
affirmance of a death sentence imposed upon Donald Ray Middlebrooks in a
Davidson County resentencing hearing for first degree murder.

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks
01S01-9803-CC-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

We granted this appeal by the State of Tennessee to address the issue of jury unanimity in cases where the State relies on alternative theories of guilt to convict an accused under a single count indictment. In this case, the appellee, James Lemacks, was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the appellee of DUI based upon evidence that he operated his automobile while intoxicated or that he was criminally responsible for allowing his friend, Clinton Sanchez, to drive the automobile while intoxicated. The jury returned a general verdict convicting the appellee of DUI.

State of Tennessee v. James R. Lemacks - Dissenting
01S01-9803-CR-00049
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Because the opinion filed by the Court of Criminal Appeals states the view I take, I respectfully dissent from the view held by the majority of my colleagues and would adopt the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Hawkins vs. Hart
01S01-9811-CV-00199
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Marcus vs. Marcus
02S01-9804-CH-00036

Guliano vs. Cleo
02S01-9801-CV-00002

State vs. Buggs
02S01-9803-CR-00020
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079

Strouth vs. State
03S01-9707-CC-00079
Trial Court Judge: Frank L. Slaughter

State vs. Brown
02S01-9710-CR-00085

Morris vs. State
01S01-9804-BC-00076

State vs. Meyer
03S01-9812-CR-00140

State vs. Rogers
02S01-9804-CR-00035

Taylor vs. State
02S01-9806-CR-00054

Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
01S01-9609-CV-00196

Matthews vs. Pickett County, Tennessee
01S01-9801-FD-00005
Trial Court Judge: David A. Nelson