Opinions

Ahmad Ben Nama and Kahled Abed v. Aymanayoub, d/b/a Limited Auto Sales - Concurring
M 1999-00171-C O A -R 3-C
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Killcrease, Jr.

This is an appeal from the chancellor’s denial of Defendant’s motion to alter or amend findings of fact. The question to be answered is whether the “newly discovered evidence rule”  would allow the presentation post-trial of evidence which the proponent concedes he could have produced at trial. The defendant contends that evidence which tends to show misrepresentation on the part of a nonmovant should be allowed under a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52, 59 and 60 regardless of whether it was discoverable at trial. Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we cannot agree.

David Frounfelker v. Identity Group, Inc.
M2001-02542-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal

W1999-02113-CCA-R3-CD
W1999-02113-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Peter Ross
W1999-00972-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Mark Bryan
W1999-01527-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty

03C01-9901-CR-00044
03C01-9901-CR-00044
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

03C01-9901-CR-00121
03C01-9901-CR-00121
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

03C01-9807-CC-00257
03C01-9807-CC-00257
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

E1999-00332-C0A-R3-CV
E1999-00332-C0A-R3-CV

E1999-01782-C0A-R3-CV
E1999-01782-C0A-R3-CV

E1999-01346-C0A-R3-CV
E1999-01346-C0A-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant

Francis Ione Lethcoe, et al vs. Ricky Ray Holden, et ux , et al
E1999-02319-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
American Showbar Series, Inc. d/b/a Show Palace, Michael L. Grubb and Linda Strouth vs. Sullvan Co, TN , Robert Walling d/b/a Bottoms up Club, Robert Walling and Linda A. Strouth vs. Sullivan Co., TN and the State of Tn Atty General

E1999-00590-COA-RC-CV
E1999-00590-COA-RC-CV

Vera Elizabeth Thomas vs. Kenneth Lamar Thomas
E1999-00563-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Frank Brown, III

In this divorce action, the husband appealed from the award of alimony
to the wife.

Vera Elizabeth Thomas vs. Kenneth Lamar Thomas
E1999-00563-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks

E1999-00686-COA-R7-CV
E1999-00686-COA-R7-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.

State vs. Stacy Allen Bullard
E1999-00796-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith

State vs. Darrell Baker
M1999-00272-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter

Rudy Wendell Myers vs. State
M1999-00498-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith

Karon Spicer vs. James Spicer
M1999-01285-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
In this divorce case, the husband challenges only the trial court's refusal to award him a portion of the wife's retirement account. Although retirement benefits earned during a marriage are marital property, we find the division of property to be equitable and affirm.

State vs. James Matthew Lawrence
M1999-00004-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay

State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Tony Martin
W2001-02221-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman

State vs. James Hankins
W1999-00529-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley
James R. Hankins appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. All of his allegations are without merit, save one. Hankins has established by clear and convincing evidence that his counsel on direct appeal failed to follow the required procedures for withdrawal of counsel under Supreme Court Rule 14. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate and reinstate our judgment in Hankins' direct appeal.