State vs. Chris W. Frame
01C01-9708-CC-00332
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

State vs. Leming
03C01-9709-CC-00426

State vs. McCarter
03C01-9707-CC-00238
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

State vs. Clark
03C01-9706-CR-00227
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

Nashville Electric Service vs. Stone
01A01-9708-CV-00383
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Harpeth Valley Utilities Dist., vs. Metro. Gov't.
01A01-9712-CH-00699

State vs. Earnest Travis
01C01-9706-CC-00215
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.

Deon Braden vs. State
01C01-9708-CC-00351

State vs. Derrick Burkeen
01C01-9708-CC-00358
Trial Court Judge: J. Curwood Witt

State vs. Andre Parks
01C01-9709-CC-00389

Donoho vs. Donoho, Jr.
01A01-9802-CV-00070
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers

Allen vs. Wiseman
01A01-9710-CV-00565
Trial Court Judge: Bobby H. Capers

Willis, et. al. vs. Franklin Co. Bd. of Education
01A01-9606-CH-00266
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Trail vs. Transportation Management Svcs., et. al.
01A01-9607-CH-00314
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

Mark S. Tidman and Evelyn J. Tidman v. The Salvation Army, Bertha Worthy, Kenneth E. Brewer, Fred Ruth - Concuring
01-A-01-9708-CV-00380
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

Two former Salvation Army officers, a husband and wife who had been demoted and discharged, sued their superior officers and The Salvation Army itself for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrageous conduct. The Circuit Court of Davidson County dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm, and hold, in addition, that the defendants’ actions were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

03C01-9704-CC-00146
03C01-9704-CC-00146
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. Welcome
03C01-9709-CR-00387

State vs. Ralph Miller
02C01-9709-CC-00361

State vs. John/Rita Adams
02C01-9707-CR-00246
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

State vs. Thomas Stone
02C01-9711-CC-00433

State vs. Morris
03C01-9708-CR-00351

State vs. Hooper
03C01-9704-CR-00152
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State vs. Walden
03C01-9707-CR-00317
Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury

State vs. McDowell
03C01-9707-CR-00278

Broderick Kelsey v. Kraft Food Service
03S01-9710-CH-00121
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell Peoples,
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 appellants contend the trial court's award of benefits based on six times the medical impairment rating is excessive. The appellee contends the award is inadequate because the chancellor erred in "finding three of the four factors listed under Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6- 242 were not proven by clear and convincing evidence" and that the award of benefits based on forty-two percent to the body as a whole is inadequate. The appellee also contends the chancellor erred in failing to award its vocational expert's fee as discretionary costs. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. At the time of the trial, the claimant, Kelsey was thirty-five years old and a high school graduate. Following high school graduation, he served three years in the United States Army, where he worked as a warehouseman and equipment operator. He has worked as a truck driver. He worked for the employer, Kraft Food Services, for about two years until June 27, 1995, when he suffered a compensable back injury while lifting a case of potatoes. He has not worked since. The treating physician, Dr. Seiters, diagnosed a protruding or bulging disc, provided conservative care and estimated his permanent medical impairment at seven percent to the body as a whole. The doctor further opined the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on November 15, 1995 and could return to light work. The treating physician and another doctor who had first examined the claimant were of the opinion that the claimant could be exaggerating his symptoms. At the trial, the claimant gave conflicting testimony concerning his ability to read. On direct examination, he testified that he could not read. On 2