State vs. Michael Underwood
02C01-9701-CR-00032

State vs. Larry Englet
W1999-00283-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

State vs. Sharon Melton In Re: City Bonding Compnay d/b/a A-1 Bonding Company
01C01-9612-CC-00497

Robert Morris v. Columbia Construction
M2002-00503-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
In this suit for retaliatory discharge, Appellant asserts that his filing of a worker's compensation claim was a substantial factor in his employer's decision to terminate him. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer. We affirm.

State vs. Steven Newman
02C01-9707-CC-00266

State vs. Earl Lee
02C01-9707-CC-00282

02A01-9709-CV-00206
02A01-9709-CV-00206
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.

State vs. Gregory Jackson
02C01-9706-CR-00206
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Shannon Young
02C01-9704-CR-00144
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Larry Baxter
02C01-9707-CC-00233

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.

Less, Getz & Lipman vs. Rainbow Entertainment
02A01-9706-CV-00124
Trial Court Judge: Janice M. Holder

State vs. Willie Taylor
02C01-9702-CR-00080
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Marvin Matthews
02C01-9712-CC-00465

State vs. Patricia Lishman
02C01-9704-CC-00136
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Earnest Hawkins
02C01-9709-CC-00374

Elizabeth Bates vs. Robert Bates
02A01-9708-CH-00185

Potter's Home Center, Inc., D/B/A Potter's Home Center, v. Lauren Dale Tucker, and Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and wife Mildred E. Viles, and the Guaranty Title Company, and First American National Bank
03A01-9710-CH-00467
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William E. Lantrip

Potter’s Home Center appeals the trial court’s summary judgment which dismissed its suit to enforce a materialman’s lien against Defendants/Appellees Wilburn R. Viles, Sr., and Mildred E. Viles. We affirm the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that Potter’s failed to comply with the applicable notice requirements of the mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien statutes.

State vs. Freddie Russell
02C01-9710-CR-00403

Woodrow Wilson vs. State
01C01-9707-CR-00431

Offender. This Court Affirmed The Appellant'S Sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89-
01C01-9708-CR-00377

Tommy Blevins vs. State
01C01-9711-CR-00508

State vs. Tracy Pitts
01C01-9611-CR-00487
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Special Judge Hamilton v. Gayden, Jr.
01S01-9707-CH-00160
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. Richard Mcgregor
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. This declaratory judgment action likely created an interest that otherwise might not have existed or, perhaps, might not have manifested itself. The employer filed the action alleging that its employee reported that she experienced pain in her neck on August 17, 1995, that she was successfully treated and returned to work on September 12, 1995, that her medical expenses had been paid, and that the plaintiff [employer] should be "discharged from responsibility to defendant [employee]." A counter-claim followed in course, with the employee alleging that her neck injury resulted in temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, permanent impairment and disability, together with the incurrence of medical expenses. The trial court found the issues in favor of the employee and awarded her benefits based upon a twelve and one-half percent disability to her whole body, thus entitling her to a recovery of $2,793.5 to be paid in a lump sum. By separate order the employee was awarded $6. discretionary costs. The propriety of these awards is questioned on appeal. Our 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 finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T.C.A. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The claimant is 37 years old, with limited marketable skills. She was initially employed in 1991 or 1992, according to her testimony. In 1992 "something happened to my neck" while loading a spool of wire. Two or three

State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Martin
01S01-9611-CR-00225
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

A jury convicted the defendant, Henry Lee Martin, of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. We granted review to determine whether Tenn. R. Evid., Rule 613(b) mandates that a foundation be laid prior to the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We hold that extrinsic evidence remains inadmissible until: (1) the witness is asked whether the witness made the prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the witness denies or equivocates as to having made the prior inconsistent statement.