State vs. Larry Jones
02C01-9708-CR-00331

State vs. Larry Pittman
02C01-9704-CC-00138

State vs. Charles Taylor
02C01-9704-CR-00153

State vs. Danny Walker
02C01-9706-CC-00218
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

State vs. James Transou
02C01-9703-CC-00125
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

State vs. Larry Cunningham
02C01-9709-CC-00336

Dorothy O'Shea vs. Vet/Betty Conder
02A01-9704-CH-00083
Trial Court Judge: J. Walton West

State vs. Robert Howell
02C01-9705-CR-00194

State vs. Timmy Fulton
02C01-9706-CC-00223

State vs. George Tucker
02C01-9707-CR-00249

Teresa M. Mccarley Johnson v. Maury Regional Hospital,
M1999-00291-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Loser, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton, Judge
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) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Johnson, filed this civil action on April 2, 1998 to recover benefits for injuries which she alleged resulted from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment by the employer. By its answer, the employer denied the occurrence of a compensable work related injury. Following a trial, the trial judge found that the claimant suffered a ruptured disc arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on fifty-four percent to the bodyas a whole. As discussed below, this tribunal has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). This standard requires the panel to examine in depth a trial court's factual findings and conclusions. We are not bound by the trial court's factual findings, but must instead conduct an independent examination to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Howard Woods vs. MTC Mgt. & Solomon Mgt.
02S01-9706-CH-00061

State vs. Max Martin
01C01-9609-CR-00415

Gregory Jones vs. State
01C01-9706-CR-00226

William Kirk Riley, Pro Se vs. State
M2002-02302-CCA-OT-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The Petitioner, William Kirk Riley, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Charles Allen
M2002-03144-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The Defendant, Charles Ray Allen, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief, and the Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Moser vs. Dept. of Transp., et. al .
01A01-9707-CH-00317
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

State vs. James Pinkerton
01C01-9706-CC-00220

Robert Moore vs.State
01C01-9712-CC-00580

Pardue, Jr. vs. Metro Gov't
01A01-9707-CH-00312
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Erwin, et. ux. vs. Lovell, et. al.
01A01-9706-CV-00248
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain

Holt vs. Lewis
01A01-9707-PB-00314
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

03C01-9709-CR-00342
03C01-9709-CR-00342
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Provencher vs. State
03C01-9704-CR-00147
Trial Court Judge: William M. Barker

Howard F. Stanley v. South Central Bell
03S01-9705-CH-00048
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. H. David Cate,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff filed a "Petition to Reopen" a workers' compensation case wherein the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 26, 199. In the initial case, the Chancellor awarded the plaintiff benefits for a knee injury, a psychological disability, and vision loss. This Petition was filed November 27, 1995. The plaintiff alleged that he continues to suffer from "depression and other psychological problems," for which he seeks additional benefits. He amended the petition to allege that a management plan instituted in the "mid-197's" caused "stress and depression," which have gradually worsened. The defendant answered generally, and specifically pleaded the bar of the Statute of Limitations presented by T.C.A. _ 5-6-23 and T.C.A. _ 5-6- 224. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits had been fully and finally adjudicated; that the plaintiff retired from Bell South on August 25, 1985, and thus was no longer an employee as defined by T.C.A. _ 5-6-12(3); and that the benefits owing to the plaintiff as a consequence of his initial action were paid in a lump sum which, by statute, forecloses the issue pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-231. The motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff appeals. The issue is whether the case should have been resolved summarily. We need not belabor the point. The plaintiff seeks benefits for some kind of incident that occurred five (5) years before the knee injury (then alleged 2