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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey
03S01-9610-CR-00096
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard Baumgardner

We granted interlocutory review in this death penalty case to
determine whether the trial court’s orders compelling the defendant to undergo a
mental examination in accordance with Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c), and requiring
disclosure to the prosecution of material related to the examination, violated the
right to counsel or the right against self-incrimination under the United States or
Tennessee Constitutions.

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.

City of Murfreesboro v. Mariann M. Worthington, City of Murfreesboro v. Thomas W. Worthington and wife, Mariann M. Worthington
01A01-9703-CV-00124
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing of Plaintiff/Appellant City of Murfreesboro, the petition is denied.

In the matter of: Joel Kristen Sipe, State of Tennessee, Dept. of Childrens Services v. Bruce Sipe and Laurel Sipe
01A01-9704-JV-00185
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andrew J. Shookhoff

This is a termination of parental rights case. The minor child in question is Joel Kristen Sipe, born September 7, 1995 to Laurel Sipe (“Mother”) and Bruce Sipe (“Father”). The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents as to this child after finding on clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to do so. Both parents have appealed. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.

Rickye D. Anderson v. L. Lois Anderson
01A01-9704-CH-00186
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers

Appellant has filed a petition to rehear which, after due consideration is respectfully denied.

Van Adrian Barker v. Patsy Lou (Randolph) Sledd Barker - Concurring
01A01-9704-CH-00192
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Tom E. Gray

In this divorce case, the husband Van Adrian Barker has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court declaring the parties to be divorced under TCA § 36-4-129, and dividing the marital estate. The appellant presents only the following issue:

I.    Whether the Chancellor erred in finding that the husband did not substantially contribute to the appreciation of the rental property owned by the wife, thereby denying the husband a share in that appreciation.