State vs. Padgett
03C01-9704-CR-00138

State vs. Drinnon
03C01-9708-CR-00347
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Jefferies vs. Bowlin & State
03C01-9708-CC-00345

State vs. Brian Hunter
02C01-9708-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Brian Hunter
02C01-9708-CR-00309
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Anthony Richardson
02C01-9605-CR-00140
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

State vs. Derrick Means
02C01-9707-CR-00248
Trial Court Judge: John P. Colton, Jr.

State vs. William Parker
02C01-9711-CC-00432

Tanya Tucker, et al vs. Capitol Records, Inc.
M2000-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Wachtel vs. Western Sizzlin Corp.
01A01-9708-CH-00396
Trial Court Judge: Ben H. Cantrell

Williamson Co. Broadcasting vs. Intermedia Partners
01A01-9709-CH-00480
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Tipton vs. Burr & Blue Ridge Drilling
01A01-9707-CH-00363
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

West vs. Luna
01A01-9707-CH-00281
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb

Planned Parenthood Association vs. McWherter
01A01-9601-CV-00052
Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd

Address The Parole Eligibility Jury Instruction. In State v. King, ____ S.W.2D ____
01C01-9704-CC-00158
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. James Nichols
01C01-9704-CR-00158
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Linda L. Mires v. David Clay and Bill Hayes, et al.
02A01-9707-CV-00172
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bill Acree

This case involves the violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in connection with a breach of a residential construction contract. Defendant, Bill Hayes, appeals the judgment of the trial court on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff, Linda Mires, $5,000.00 for 1Rufus and Linda Mires filed the original suit in April 1995 but took a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Mires died after the suit was refiled, so Mrs. Mires amended the complaint to list herself as plaintiff, individually, and as the executrix of the estate of Rufus Mires. Since Mr. Mires was alive throughout the events that precipitated this suit, we use the plural “plaintiffs” throughout this opinion. 2 violation of TCPA and the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $5,907.50 in attorney fees and expenses.

State vs. Gary Prude
02C01-9711-CR-00425

State vs. Robert Taylor
02C01-9805-CC-00161

State vs. Michael Martin
02C01-9804-CC-00101

State vs. Ramsey
03C01-9708-CR-00361
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller

State vs. Franklin
03C01-9706-CR-00219
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State vs. Robinson
03C01-9710-CR-00430
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

State vs. Creekmore
03C01-9712-CR-00535

Donna Lee Stephen v. R. C. Leamon and Conditionaire Company, Inc.
03SO1-9707-CH-00091
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. Peoples,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this claim for death benefits, the claimants contend the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings that the decedent was an independent contractor and that the defendant, Leamon, was not a statutory employer. At the conclusion of the trial, the chancellor made the following findings and conclusions: "The issue in this case is whether Mr. Stephens, Mr. Raymond Stephens, was an employee or independent contractor. In resolving that issue, the Court has placed primary reliance upon the testimony of Kim Ray, Leon Evans and WilliamLevon Stephens, because those are the witnesses who were most intimately involved in the work that was performed by Raymond Stephens. "It's undisputed, based on the testimony of these witnesses that Mr. Raymond Stephens did perform services for Conditionaire Company. In particular, he installed duct work for heating and air systems. He would perform that work in accordance with plans and specifications that were provided by Conditionaire. "He was not directly supervised in the performance of his work. There was no one on a daily basis, or even an hourly basis, who reviewed his work or the method in which he did his work. The work that he did was reviewed from time to time and, upon completion of the assigned work, was reviewed by Mr. Kim Ray and by Mr. Leon Evans on behalf of Conditionaire. The purpose of that review was to ensure that the work complied with the plans and specifications and with the applicable codes. "Mr. Stephens was at times provided with time frames within which the work was to be done, but he was not given a specific time to report to work each day and a specific time to terminate work each day. He was not directed as to when he could eat or when he could take breaks. Primarily, he provided his own tools; however he did from time to time use ladders and a vacuum cleaner that were provided by 2