State vs. Estenico Slayton
02C01-9703-CC-00117

William Cantrell vs. DeKalb County, et al
M1998-00964-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
This appeal involves two deputy sheriffs' response to a church's complaint that one of its members was disrupting a church assembly. After the deputy sheriffs suggested that he leave the premises, the church member filed a civil rights action in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County alleging that the two deputies had unlawfully detained him and had interfered with his right to practice his religion. The law enforcement officers, asserting qualified immunity, moved for a summary judgment. The trial court denied their motion. We have determined that the trial court erred because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and did not violate any of the church members' clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the summary judgment and remand the case with directions that it be dismissed.

02A01-9504-CV-00089
02A01-9504-CV-00089
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

02A01-9409-CH-00221
02A01-9409-CH-00221

02A01-9507-JV-00155
02A01-9507-JV-00155
Trial Court Judge: Kenneth A. Turner

02A01-9506-CH-00138
02A01-9506-CH-00138
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

02A01-9511-CH-00259
02A01-9511-CH-00259
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Billy Clevinger v. Burlington Motor Carriers, Inc.
03S01-9508-CV-00092
Authoring Judge: Penny J. White, Justice
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K. Wexler
This workers' compensation appeal from the Hawkins County Circuit Court has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e) (3) (1995 Supp.) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. The plaintiff, Billy Clevinger ("employee"), is a resident of Hawkins County, Tennessee. The defendant, Burlington Motor Carriers, Inc., ("employer"), is a trucking company with its principal place of business in Indiana. The employee, who was hired in Tennessee, worked for the employer as truck driver. On December 1, 1993, the employee was driving one of the employer's trucks from Kentucky to Arkansas. While traveling through Tennessee on the way to Arkansas, he was involved in a single vehicle accident. The employee was hospitalized for a short time due to injuries sustained in the accident. He then returned to his home in Hawkins County. On December 28, 1993, the employee signed a document sent to him by the employer's claim adjustor entitled "Agreement to Compensation of Employee and Employer." The form contained the heading "Indiana Workers' Compensation Board, . . . Indianapolis, Indiana." The document included information concerning the date of injury, the type of injury (bruised left arm and strain of lower back), the place of injury, the employee's average weekly wage, and the amount the employee would be receiving as temporary total disability. The form also contained the declaration that " [w]e (employee and employer) have reached an agreement in regards to compensation for the injury sustained by said employee . . . ." The form further indicated that the "terms of the agreement . . . shall be payable . . . until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Indiana Workers' Compensation/Occupational Diseases Acts." The employee 2

Billy Clevinger v. Burlington Motor Carriers, Inc.
03S01-9508-CV-00092
Authoring Judge: Penny J. White, Justice
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ben K.
This workers' compensation appeal from the Hawkins County Circuit Court has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-6-225(e) (3) (1995 Supp.) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. The plaintiff, Billy Clevinger ("employee"), is a resident of Hawkins County, Tennessee. The defendant, Burlington Motor Carriers, Inc., ("employer"), is a trucking company with its principal place of business in Indiana. The employee, who was hired in Tennessee, worked for the employer as truck driver. On December 1, 1993, the employee was driving one of the employer's trucks from Kentucky to Arkansas. While traveling through Tennessee on the way to Arkansas, he was involved in a single vehicle accident. The employee was hospitalized for a short time due to injuries sustained in the accident. He then returned to his home in Hawkins County. On December 28, 1993, the employee signed a document sent to him by the employer's claim adjustor entitled "Agreement to Compensation of Employee and Employer." The form contained the heading "Indiana Workers' Compensation Board, . . . Indianapolis, Indiana." The document included information concerning the date of injury, the type of injury (bruised left arm and strain of lower back), the place of injury, the employee's average weekly wage, and the amount the employee would be receiving as temporary total disability. The form also contained the declaration that " [w]e (employee and employer) have reached an agreement in regards to compensation for the injury sustained by said employee . . . ." The form further indicated that the "terms of the agreement . . . shall be payable . . . until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Indiana Workers' Compensation/Occupational Diseases Acts." The employee 2

01A01-9502-CV-00045
01A01-9502-CV-00045
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal

Byrd v. Hall, (Tenn.1995), 847 Sw2D, 213, "A Conclusory Assertion That The Non-Moving
01A01-9502-CV-00045

01A01-9511-CV-00527
01A01-9511-CV-00527
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

01A01-9601-CH-00039
01A01-9601-CH-00039
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark

State of Tennessee, ex rel. John Jay Hooker v. Brooke Thompson. State of Tennessee, ex rel., Lewis Laska v. Brook Thompson, State of Tennessee, ex rel., Lewis Laska v. Brook Thompson
01A01-9606-CH-00259
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice William H. D. Fones

The matters currently pending before this Court are a Petition to Rehear filed by Appellant Hooker, Appellees' Motion for Clarification and Appellees' Motion to Supplement the Record filed by the Attorney General, Petition on behalf of Holly K. Lillard and Jerry L. Smith to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Responding to Appellees' Motion for Clarification, Petition for Rehearing and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by appellant Laska, Appellees' Petition to Rehear filed by the Attorney General and Motion of Penny J. White to Intervene.

01A01-9510-CH-00458
01A01-9510-CH-00458
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray

State of Tennessee v. Timmy L. Laster
03C01-9507-CR-00194
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz

The appellant, Timmy L. Laster, entered pleas of guilty to three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a class A felony, two counts of aggravated assault, a class C felony, and one count of aggravated burglary, a class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-two years for each of the three especially aggravated kidnappings in case number 55799; one of the sentences is to run consecutively to the others, for an effective total of forty-four years. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent six year sentences for the aggravated assault and the aggravated burglary in case number 55800, and to six years for the aggravated assault in case number 55801.2 The six-year sentence for the aggravated burglary in case number 55800 is to run consecutively to the sentences in case number 55799. The total
effective sentence is fifty-six years in the Department of Correction.

On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court applied an improper enhancement factor, failed to apply appropriate mitigating factors, and erroneously imposed consecutive sentences. He also argues that the trial court’s failure to apply the purposes and principles of sentencing resulted in a sentence that was not reasonably related to the seriousness of the offenses. We find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Chris Ramey - Concurring
03C01-9509-CC-00285
Authoring Judge: Judge Paul G. Summers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

I agree that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. I join in Judge Tipton's concurring opinion because I believe that this record is adequate for our full appellate review. I am of the opinion that the procedures outlined in State v. Winsett, 882 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) have been followed.

Scott McCluen v. The Roane County Times, Inc., D/B/A The Standard and Gerald Largen
03A01-9512-CV-00434
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston P. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge John B. Hagler

This is a suit by Scott McCluen, County Attorney for Roane County, against The Roane County Times, Inc., D/B/A The Standard, and its owner and publisher Gerald Largen, seeking damages for libel incident to two separate publications in The Standard.

State of Tennessee, ex rel. John Jay Hooker v. Brook Thompson, et al. State of Tennessee , ex rel. Lewis Laska
01A01-9606-CH-00259
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice William H. D. Fones

At the oral argument in this matter on July 5, 1996, an amicus curiae brief was filed by John King, who purports to be the Tennessee Republican party's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy at issue in these cases. Verbal permission was granted by the Court at the July 5 hearing for the filing of additional briefs no later than Monday, July 8, 1996. Yesterday, in accordance with the Court's deadline, Mr. King filed a supplemental amicus curiae brief in this matter, asserting that this Court had erred in denying him the equitable relief granted to Justice Penny White and Appellant Lewis Laska. Mr. King does not assert that it was inappropriate for this Court to fashion the equitable relief granted; he “. . . simply asserts that, under the circumstances he is also entitled to an equitable remedy in the form of an extension of the qualifying deadline for nominees of a party to the same extent extended for Justice White and Mr. Laska.” (Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief of John K. King, page 5.) Because of the pressing nature of this matter, the Court made its ruling and entered an Order on July 5, 1996 within a few hours after oral argument, to be followed by an opinion. Although none of the parties had called T.C.A. § 17-1-301 to the Court's attention, in the course of researching the law and preparing to write its opinion over the weekend, the Court reviewed the provisions of T.C.A. § 17-1-301, which make it clear that the Supreme Court vacancy at issue in this case must be filled from the Eastern Grand Division of Tennessee. This effectively mooted the issue of Appellant Laska's residence in the Western Grand Division. On Monday, July 8, 1996, this Court issued its Order vacating its remand to the Chancellor for a ruling as to Mr. Laska's residence vel non in the Western District and denying Mr. Laska’s request for mandamus on grounds that he lacked standing to become a candidate.

Linda Ann Carlton, v. James Thomas Carlton
02A01-9503-CH-00050
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Judge George R. Ellis

This current litigation is what we shall call economic fallout from an earlier domestic relations case. Linda Ann Carlton (“plaintiff”) filed suit for divorce in 1990 from James Thomas Carlton (“defendant”) in the Chancery Court of Haywood County. In October 1991, the chancellor granted plaintiff a divorce from defendant on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, awarded joint custody of the parties’ 28 year-old handicapped daughter, Donna, with the principal place of residence with plaintiff, divided the parties’ marital property, and awarded rehabilitative alimony and attorney’s fees to plaintiff. Defendant appealed to this court. The primary issues presented on appeal related to the custody of the parties’ daughter, the division of marital property, and the award of rehabilitative alimony and attorney’s fees to plaintiff. The record reflects that the marital property was valued in excess of two million dollars ($2,000,000), with defendant and plaintiff receiving slightly over one million dollars ($1,000,000) each as a result of the chancellor’s decree.

State of Tennessee v. David Keene
02S01-9112-CR-00064
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam

On May 23, 1994, this Court affirmed petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder and remanded the cause for resentencing. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a timely petition pursuant to Rule 30, Tenn. R. App. P. for a rehearing.  We grant the petition to rehear and remand the cause to the trial court for the conduct of a sentencing hearing consonant with our holidng in State v. Richard Odom.

James E. Simons, and wife Margaret B. Simons, v. Herbert H. Replogle, Jr.
02A01-9512-CH-00272
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Hewitt P. Tomlin
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

James E. Simons and Margaret B. Simons (“plaintiffs”) filed suit in the Chancery Court of Madison County against Herbert H. Replogle, Jr. (“defendant”) for the purpose of establishing a common boundary line between the parties. Following a bench trial the chancellor established the parties’ common boundary line based on the calls in defendant’s deed. On appeal plaintiffs have presented one issue for our review: whether the evidence preponderates against the chancellor’s finding. In our opinion, the chancellor did err and we accordingly reverse.

Sherry Lawrence v. Erin Truckways, Ltd. d/b/a Digby Truck Line, Inc., and The Travelers Insurance Company
01S01-9512-CV-00216
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Walter C. Kurtz,
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. The trial court awarded plaintiff 1% permanent vocational disability. Defendants challenge the trial court's finding of permanent impairment and the trial court's finding of 1% permanent vocational disability. We find that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding of a compensable permanent injury. We find, however, that the evidence preponderates against an award of 1% permanent vocational disability. W e find the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding of 75% permanent partial vocational disability. We so modify the judgment of the trial court and, as modified, affirm it. Plaintiff, 41, has a tenth-grade education. Her past work history includes work as a waitress, bartender, factory worker and a truck driver. On October 3, 199, plaintiff and her husband were driving for defendant when plaintiff fell from the truck cab as she was trying to open a partially stuck passenger door. She was diagnosed with a sprain to the right upper back and right neck and admitted to the hospital for an unstable diabetic condition. She was also visited by a psychiatrist while at the hospital for depression and sleeplessness. Since her injury, plaintiff has developed chronic pain in her neck and back and eventually in her lower back. She never returned to work for the defendant but, in 1992, she began working as a bartender. She quit after ten months due to pain. Plaintiff was first treated by Dr. Gurumurthy Reddy, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed a neck and upper back strain and noted muscle spasm and limitation of range of motion of the neck. He last saw her on January 31, 1991, when he diagnosed myofascial neck and upper back pain and released her to return to work on a trial basis. Plaintiff was eventually treated by Dr. Dennis Aguirre, an anesthesiologist. He diagnosed fibromyalgia in August 1993. He testified that fibromyalgia is a 2

Mary Charmagne Perdue v. National Healthcorp, L.P., Or National Health Corporation, Or Nhc, Inc., And/Or Columbia Health Care
01S01-9508-CH-00142
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim T. Hamilton,
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 appeal, the employee or claimant, Perdue, contends (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that she failed to give the required notice of a claimed injury by accident occurring on January 23, 1993, (2) that the said injury was suffered within the course and scope of employment with the defendant, and (3) that she is entitled to compensation for an injury on April 3, 1994. The panel concludes that the judgment awarding benefits for an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the claimant's employment in August of 1994 should be affirmed. The claimant is twenty-nine years old and has an associates degree in nursing. At all material times she was employed by the employer, Columbia, as a registered nurse. She claims to have strained her lower back in January of 1993 at work but continued to work. She did not give any written notice of the injury to the employer and there is conflicting evidence as to whether she verbally reported it. In April of 1993 she saw a chiropractor. On April 17, 1993, she noticed numbness in her hip and leg and began seeing Dr. Jeffrey Adams, who diagnosed a herniated lumbar disk. She did not tell the doctor that the condition was a result of an injury at work, according to the doctor, who performed corrective surgery. On August 5, 1993, the claimant was grabbed around the neck by a patient and pulled down to the patient's bed. Dr. Adams diagnosed a herniated disk at the same location as the previous one and performed a second corrective surgery. She has not returned to work.1 The trial judge found that, as to the claimed January injury, the claimant had failed to carry the burden of proof that her superiors at work had actual notice of her injury or that a work-related injury had occurred on that date.2 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. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 91 S.W.2d 1 The claimant had another surgery in 1994 by a different surgeon. 2 The trial judge did award medical and hospital benefits for the August injury, from which no issue has been raised in this appeal. 2