Opinions

Kenneth Morris vs. Christopher Norwood & Kevin Rigdon
E1999-01328-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.

Lavin vs. Jordon
M1997-00259-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Lavin vs. Jordon
M1997-00259-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes

Crabtree vs. Crabtree
M1997-00262-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

State vs. Delores Babb
W2001-00415-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The defendant was found guilty of DUI by a Henry County jury and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, all suspended except for ten days. On appeal, she argues the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Cedric Franklin vs. Dept. of Correction
M2001-00279-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

In Re: Adoption of M.J.S.
W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

In Re: Adoption of M.J.S.
W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

In Re: Adoption of M.J.S.
W1999-00197-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans

State vs. Antonio Smith
W1999-01096-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Lori Ray
W1999-00641-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Lee Moore

State vs. Dennis Menzies
W1998-00608-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

Health Controls vs. Ronald Gifford
W1999-02598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: W. Michael Maloan
This is an insurance case. The defendant sustained injuries in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in a car owned by his mother. The defendant's insurance policy did not cover expenses for injuries "when a person, other than the person for whom the claim is made, is considered responsible for the sickness or injury." Unaware of any third party responsible for the accident, the insurance company paid part of the defendant's medical bills. The defendant subsequently recovered from his mother's automobile insurance carrier. When the defendant's insurance company learned of the subsequent recovery, it filed suit seeking repayment of the amount it paid for the defendant's medical bills. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, finding that it was entitled to recovery based on the policy. The defendant appeals. We affirm, finding inter alia that a person need not be at fault in the automobile accident to be "considered responsible" under the policy.

State vs. James Geddings
M1999-00333-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

State vs. Cornelius Starks
M1999-00340-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson

State vs. James M. Smith
M1999-00252-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

Sammie Eugene Smith vs. state
M1998-00083-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. Joe W. Steward
M2001-2431-CCA-RM-CD

Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

State of Tennessee v. Michael Q. Ray
E1999-00208-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State et al vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al vs. Gregory Bennett Perry and Steve Lloyd Champion, et al
M1999-00455-SC-R11-CV

Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Issac Earl Edgin vs. State
M1999-01620-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The petitioner appeals from a Montgomery County trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he is entitled to a new trial because, among other things, his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the judgment fails to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, the order dismissing this cause is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new post-conviction proceeding.

Darryl Davis v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation and
M1999-00008-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Samuel L. Lewis, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo with a presumption that the trial court's findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Hill vs. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W. 2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses and issues of credibility and weight of testimony are involved, considerable deference is afforded the trial court's findings of fact. See Humphrey vs. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W. 2d 315, 315-16 (Tenn. 1987).

Michael Smith vs. Steve Futris vs. Richard Feltus
W1998-00181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This is a contract dispute. The plaintiffs entered into a contract to buy the defendants' office condominium and equipment. The contract provided that the defendants would execute a note for the balance of the purchase price, payable in monthly installments over a twenty year term. The contract had no express provision on the right of prepayment. The promissory note expressly granted the plaintiffs the right of prepayment. Five years later, the plaintiffs attempted to prepay the note. The defendants refused the plaintiffs' offer, saying that the plaintiffs had no right of prepayment. The plaintiffs then ceased making any payments on the note. The plaintiffs later filed a lawsuit seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that they had the right of prepayment. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking reformation of the note and the deed of trust. The defendants also filed a third party claim for damages against the plaintiffs' attorney, who had prepared the closing documents, including the note. The defendants alleged that the attorney had breached his duty of due care to them by putting a right of prepayment in the note. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had the right to prepay and that the plaintiffs had made an effective tender of payment to the defendants. The trial court dismissed the defendants' third party claim against the attorney, finding that he had not represented the defendants and owed no duty of care to them. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding, inter alia, that the promissory note gave the plaintiffs the right of prepayment, and also finding that the plaintiffs have not made an effective tender of payment.

Martha Langschmidt vs. Carl Langschmidt
W1999-00434-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Russell Lee Moore, Jr.

Martha Langschmidt vs. Carl Langschmidt
W1999-00434-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Russell Lee Moore, Jr.