Jon Hoscheit v. Johanna G. Hoscheit
01A01-9709-CH-00493
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

This action began with a complaint filed by the appellee, Jon Hoscheit, (husband) seeking an absolute divorce from the appellant, Johanna G. Hoscheit (wife). After a bench trial, the court entered a final judgment granting an absolute divorce, custody of the parties' minor child to the father, dividing the marital estate and awarding alimony to the wife. From the judgment of the trial court the wife has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brookridge Apartments., Ltd. v. Universal Constructors, Inc., et al. - Concurring
01A01-9709-CV-00523
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

Plaintiff appeals to this Court on the refusal by the Trial Judge to grant plaintiff relief pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Procedure, 60.02(1). The underlying action was dismissed on July 23, 1996 by the Trial Judge “for want of prosecution.” On July 18, 1997, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60, T.R.C.P. on the ground the judgment was entered because of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. The motion explained that the plaintiffs “former counsel William J. Hart, did not receive notice from the Court that the case would be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to local Rule 37.02.”

John Anderson Kinard v. Linda Kinard
01A01-9606-CH-00265
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew, III

This appeal involves a divorce ending a long-term marriage. The husband filed suit to divorce his wife of thirty years in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, and the wife counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, declared the parties divorced, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony for three years. The wife takes issue on this appeal with the decision to declare the parties divorced, the division of marital property, and the failure to award her long-term spousal support and attorney’s fees. She also insists that the trial judge should have recused himself because of his prior professional association with the husband’s lawyer. We conclude that the trial judge was not disqualified from hearing this case. While we also find that declaring the parties divorced was proper, we have determined that the division of marital property and the spousal support award should be modified but that the wife should not receive an additional award for her legal expenses.

Jimmy Key, v. Tennessee Board of Paroles
01A01-9610-CH-00480
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a dispute between the Board of Paroles and a prisoner convicted of being an habitual criminal over the inmate’s right to custodial parole and the calculation of his sentence credits. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted the Board’s motion to dismiss, and the prisoner has appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the prisoner’s suit in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).

State of Tennesse vs. Samuel Lamb, Jr.
01C01-9703-CC-00095
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The appellant, Samuel L. Lamb, Jr., appeals as of right the sentencing decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant pled guilty to three counts of theft of property and received an effective five year sentence.1 Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve 270 days of this sentence in the county jail with the balance of the sentence to be served in the community corrections program. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying full probation or placement in community corrections. After review, we affirm.

Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
02A01-9708-CV-00196
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

This is a divorce case. The parties, Granville Harvey Miller1 (Husband) and Linda Janiece Wright-Miller (Wife), were married for approximately 5 years before a final decree of divorce was entered in August 1997.2 During the marriage, the parties resided at a home located at 2166 Aztec Drive. On appeal, Husband challenges the correctness of the trial court’s classification of this property as marital as well as its determination that the asset is unencumbered. Husband contends that the true owner of the property is Heartland Investments, Inc. (Heartland), a corporation that he founded prior to the parties’ marriage and of which he is president and sole shareholder or, alternatively, that the parties own the property encumbered by a mortgage executed in favor of the corporation. Wife has also raised an issue with respect to the trial court’s finding that there was no increase in value of Heartland stock during the marriage. After review of the record, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We set forth our reasons below.

Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller - Concurring/Dissenting
02A01-9708-CV-00196
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the judgment of the trial court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which reverses the trial court’s decision concerning the division of the increase in value of the Heartland stock.

Heather Alicia Roach Thomson v. Patrick James Thomson - Concurring
03A01-9705-CH-00165
Authoring Judge: Judge Don T. McMurray
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Billy Joe White

This is an appeal from a post-divorce proceeding wherein the appellant sought a change in custody of the parties minor child on the grounds that there had been a material change of circumstances justifying such a change. The trial court dismissed the complaint and this appeal resulted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jason Rains, Crystal L. Carney, and Kathy Carney v. Edwin Scott Sussdorff,III, a/k/a/ Ed Sussdorff, Vicky R. Sussdorff, E. Scott Sussdorff and Allstate Insurance Company - Concurring
03A01-9801-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

While riding as passengers in an automobile owned by defendant and driven by a close friend of defendant’s son, the intervening plaintiff was seriously injured in a one-car accident when the driver apparently fell asleep at the wheel. The passenger intervened in the driver’s petition and alleged that the vehicle had been driven with the express or implied permission of its owner and sought a declaratory judgment that his insurer was therefore liable for her injuries. The trial court found the driver did not have such permission and dismissed intervenor’s petition, and she appeals.

James G. Cooper v. Asarco, Inc.
03S01-9709-CV-00114
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Rex Henry Ogle,
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. The employer contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on seventy-five percent to the leg is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the award should be affirmed. The employee or claimant, Cooper, is sixty-one years old and has a fourth grade education, but cannot read. He has worked as garbage collector, laborer and welder. He suffered a compensable knee injury on January 19, 1995, but continued to work with pain and swelling until April of the same year when he consulted an orthopedic surgeon. When the pain and swelling persisted, the surgeon performed arthroscopic surgery and diagnosed mild spurring and joint effusion superimposed on degenerative arthritis. The claimant was returned to work with permanent restrictions. The employer has made accommodations and the claimant has returned to work with restrictions and limitations. The trial judge found the claimant entitled to permanent partial disability benefits based on seventy-five percent to the injured leg. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Presley v. Bennett, 86 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn. 1993). 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. Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc., 929 S.W.2d 333 (Tenn. 1996). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 83 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. 1991). Once the causation and permanency of an injury have been established by expert testimony, the trial judge may consider many pertinent factors, including age, job skills, education, training, duration of disability, and

State vs. Shirley Davis
W2000-00084-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett
On December 3, 1998, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Shirley Davis, the Defendant and Appellant, for aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged. After a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve nine years incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erroneously enhanced her sentence. Although we find that the trial court erroneously applied a statutory enhancing factor, our de novo review reveals the existence of an applicable enhancing factor that was not applied by the trial court. This enhancement factor amply justifies the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The CIT Group/Sales Financing vs. Leslie Williams
02A01-9706-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Ashe vs. Radiation Oncology Associates
01A01-9710-CV-00563
Trial Court Judge: Henry F. Todd

Donald Zseltvay vs. Metropolitan Government
01A01-9710-CV-00587
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Ashe vs. Radiation Oncology Associates
01A01-9710-CV-00563
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Angela Hogan vs. Rex Reese and Sonya M. Reese
01A01-9801-CV-00023
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Hartsville Hospital, Inc. vs. The National Bank & Trust Co.
01A01-9801-CH-00022
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith

Edward Traughber, et al. vs. Kelly A. Kress, et al.
01A01-9709-CV-00525
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton

Donald Davis vs. Sumner County Sheriff, J. D. Vandercook, et al.
01A01-9712-CV-00696
Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall

Concrete Spaces, Inc., et al. vs. Henry Sender, et al.
01A01-9607-CH-00288
Trial Court Judge: Whitney Stegall

State vs. Jeffrey Pewitt
01C01-9706-CR-00202
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Craig Hazlett
01C01-9708-CC-00321
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee

State vs. Latoya Anderson
02C01-9707-CR-00251

State vs. Quentin Hall
02C01-9802-CR-00040

Conviction Was Affirmed By This Court. State v. Clonte J. Thomas, C.C.A. No.
02C01-9804-CR-00113