Burson & Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the Metropolitan Planning Commission
01A01-9805-CH-00249
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Claudia C. Bonnyman

Burson and Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. ("Burson & Simpson") appeals from the trial court’s affirmance of a decision rendered by the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), whereby the Planning Commission characterized a proposed amendment to a planned unit development as a “basic change in development concept,” and whereby the Planning Commission disapproved the amendment. We find that, based upon the record before this Court, the Planning Commission’s disapproval of the proposed amendment was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious and, therefore, we reverse the holding of the trial court.

Kimberly Siegel vs. David Siegel
02A01-9708-CH-00198
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

02A01-9712-CV-
02A01-9712-CV-
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

02A01-9804-CH-
02A01-9804-CH-
Trial Court Judge: C. Neal Small

02A01-9805-CV-
02A01-9805-CV-
Trial Court Judge: James E. Swearengen

William D. Pewitt v. State of Tennessee
01C01-9804-CC-00195
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

The petitioner, William D. Pewitt, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from his 1994 convictions for witness coercion, a Class D felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. William D. Pewitt, No. 01C01-9411-CC-00375, Williamson County (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 1996), app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 1, 1997). The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, allowing amendment of the petition with the aid of counsel, or holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim.

Jorge Ariel Sanjines v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9706-CR-00229
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steven Bevil

After a careful review of the remaining issues, we find that the appellant was improperly convicted of multiple inchoate offenses, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, for the criminal conduct against his ex-wife, Gina Sanjines. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-106(a) (Supp. 1994). Neither the defense nor the State considered section 39-12-106(a) when they constructed the plea agreement in this case. We conclude that the error was prejudicial and, accordingly, reverse the conviction of attempted murder.2 The remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed.

Browning Construction Company v. Lawrence E. Steinburg and John W. Browning, Sr., - Concurring
02A01-9711-CH-00290
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John Hill Chisolm

This is a suit to enforce a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien. The plaintiff asserted it made improvements to real property based on an agreement with the owner of the property. The property owner moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties. The trial court granted summary  judgment to the defendant property owner, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Steve Anderson v. Hacks Crossing Partners, et al.
02A01-9711-CH-00288
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

Plaintiff Steve Anderson appeals the trial court’s order which dismissed his complaint seeking specific performance and other relief against Defendants/Appellees Hacks Crossing Partners and Exxon Corporation. We affirm.
 

Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters
03S01-9809-CV-00101
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm

We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).

Bohannon v. Asplundh Tree Expert
03S01-9709-CH-00119
Authoring Judge: John S. Mclellan, III
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl Henley, Chancellor
This Worker's 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.

Ronald C. Tillman v. Madison County Sheriff's Department
02S01-9803-CH-00026
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris,
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.

Ralph Warren v. Tml Insurance Pool
02S01-9801-CV-00007
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Julian P. Guinn
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. In his complaint, the plaintiff charges that his "hypertension and heart problems" were caused or aggravated by stress of working as a law enforcement officer. After finding that "the record does not reveal any single triggering incident that would necessarily bring this case within the purview of _ 7-51-21 of the Tennessee Code Annotated," the trial court found "[t]here is, however, a series of events, any one of which standing alone would have sufficed." The defendant stipulated that plaintiff suffered permanent and total disability to the body as a whole and the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff accordingly. On this appeal, the defendant, Tennessee Municipal League, presents issue attacking the trial court's finding that plaintiff's hypertension and heart disease were causally related to his employment as a police officer. Plaintiff began his employment with the City of Parsons, Tennessee Police Department in 1975 and was promoted to Chief of Police in 1992. On September 25, 1995, while en route to patrol the industrial park in Parsons, plaintiff fell asleep at the wheel of his patrol car and it left the roadway. Plaintiff awoke when the automobile was on the shoulder, and thus there was no accident or injury. Plaintiff was experiencing chest pain and had experienced chest pain for years prior to this occurrence. On October 3, 1995, he sought medial attention for chest pain. The plaintiff was first diagnosed with hypertension in 1977. He was hospitalized in May, 1989 and underwent heart catheterization and angiography which showed significant heart artery blockage. His blood pressure was "moderately elevated," and he continued to have hypertension. Plaintiff was placed on medication for hypertension control and for heart artery blockage. Plaintiff was treated in 1989 by Dr. Joseph Blankenship and plaintiff returned to Dr. Blankenship on October 3, 1995. Dr. Blankenship, a cardiologist,testifying by deposition, stated that hypertension has an effect on the heart in that it enlarges and damages the heart muscles, increases the risk 2

James v. Travelers Ins. Co.
03S01-9802-CV-00012
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James B. Scott, Jr.,
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. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial court awarded the plaintiff 55 percent vocational disability to the left leg. The defendant raises the following issues: I. Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that plaintiff sustained vocational disability of 55% to the leg, where no medical restrictions were imposed on his activities, he was able to resume and sustain his pre-accident employment, and retained the ability to perform other pre-accident employments. II. Whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination that plaintiff sustained vocational disability in the amount of 55% to the leg, where its decision was based on findings of fact that were either improper to consider or not supported by a preponderance of evidence. We affirm the judgment. The plaintiff, age 57 at the time of trial, graduated from high school and received vocational training as a hydraulic mechanic while serving in the U.S. Air Force. His employment history includes working as a roustabout, a truck crane oiler, a machine operator, a fork crane operator, and a tractor-trailer truck driver. In March 1975, he went to work for the predecessor of Titan Tire or Dico Tire, where he still works as a spray operator or green tire sprayer. The plaintiff testified that on May 21, 1996 the sprayer he was using malfunctioned and began spraying paint on the floor. He explained that he continued to work until his feet got twisted around and he fell with his left leg beneath 2

Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9804-BC-00076
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker

This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed.

Zagorski vs. State of TN
01S01-9711-CC-00240

Robin Berry, et al vs. Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals, et al
M2000-01995-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals denied Petitioner's request to establish a flea market or a gift shop/deli shop in property zoned C-3 (Highway Commercial). The Board denied Petitioner's request, finding that the Petitioner's proposed businesses were neither permitted uses nor uses permissible on appeal. Petitioner appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the chancery court. The chancery court reversed the decision of the Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

James & Mary McCain vs. Cary Vaughn
02A01-9707-CV-00154
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers

02C01-9806-CC-00187Cecil
02C01-9806-CC-00187Cecil
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn

The Estate of John L. Harper, Deceased
03A01-9806-CH-00202

Antonio Sweatt vs. Donal Campbell
02A01-9808-CV-00227
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.

State vs. Wiliam Belser
03C01-9803-CR-00110
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State vs. Martin Jones
03C01-9803-CR-00084
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

State vs. Woodrow Wilson Mounger
03C01-9802-CR-00081
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller

State vs. Curtis Bolton
03C01-9707-CR-00255
Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury