Leslie A. Hassell, v. Thomas W. Hassell
02A01-9709-CH-00220
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor William Michael Maloan

Following the trial of this matter, the court ordered the parties, Leslie A. Hassell (Wife) and Thomas W. Hassell (Husband), to be entitled to a divorce pursuant to T.C.A . § 36 -4 -129 ( b ) . Husband was ordered to pay Wife $500 per month as alimony in futuro and that award is the sole issue presented by Husband to this court on appeal.

Peggy Mallicoat v. C. R. Daniels, Inc.
03S01-9708-CH-00100
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Frederick D. Mcdonald,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. 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 findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking reconsideration of her industrial disability under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(2). She had previously entered into a court-approved settlement agreement that awarded her 25 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because she failed to prove any increase in her disability. The plaintiff appeals and raises the following issue: "Did the trial court err in its refusal to reopen and reexamine the vocational disability of the Plaintiff/Appellant pursuant to T.C.A. _ 5-6-421 [sic] when its refusal was based solely on the fact that there was no additional medical testimony in support of such claim of further disability." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, age 46 at the time of trial, left high school in the twelfth grade and had no vocational training. Her employment history includes working in furniture factories, working as a cook and waitress in restaurants, and working on a farm. In February 1993, the plaintiff began working for the defendant in the stenciling department. In a short time, she was transferred to working on an upright sewing machine, which required her to stand on one foot while pressing a pedal with the other foot during the length of her eight hour shift. The plaintiff testified that she injured her back while working for the defendant on September 1, 1993. She said she bent over to pick up a hamper, which weighed 15 to 2 pounds, felt and heard a "pop" in her back, and could not straighten up. 2

Cecil Hanner v. Ruan Trans. Corp.
03S01-9709-CH-00118
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. 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. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. 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 findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The trial judge found the plaintiff was 1 percent disabled and awarded judgment for 4 weeks at $355.97 per week. The trial judge fixed the time for temporary disability from November 1, 1994 through March 2, 1995, plus he awarded an additional eight weeks of temporary total disability beyond this period. The defendant says the trial court erred in awarding 1 percent temporary total disability and in fixing the time of temporary disability. The plaintiff is 47 years old with a high school education. His employment history includes working for McDonald's as a night manager after high school and working part-time for his brother as a carpenter. The plaintiff has worked most of his adult life as a truck driver. On August 22, 1993, the plaintiff was involved in a single vehicle tractor trailer truck accident in which his truck fell 23 feet down the side of Monteagle Mountain and burned. He escaped and climbed back up to the road, where he was found unconscious. The emergency room examination showed a shoulder injury, possible closed head injury, and a headache. The plaintiff was hospitalized. The plaintiff testified he had seizures at home after the accident. A co- worker, Walter H. Zorn, testified he visited the plaintiff at home and saw him have a seizure. Another co-worker, Elroy Bailey, testified he saw a marked change in the plaintiff after the injury, such as headaches, no energy, and a "spirit broken." 2

Danny K. Dockery v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9605-BP-00101
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility alleging that Danny Kaye Dockery violated an order of
suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct.
R. 9, § 18. The provisions of Rule 9 require a suspended attorney to notify clients of
an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to
adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain
from accepting new clients.

State of Tennessee v. Howard E. King
02S01-9703-CR-00021
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

We granted permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 11 to Howard E. King, the appellant, in order to address the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2) (Supp. 1994),1 which requires trial courts to instruct juries regarding parole and release eligibility when a jury instruction on the sentencing range is requested by either party. Because we find that the statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or deprive the appellant of his due process right to a fair trial, we conclude that the statute, as applied under the circumstances of this case, is constitutional.

Dannie Joe Christmas, v. Ralph Moore and Linda Moore
03A01-9705-CV-00188
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

This case involves the possession of real estate after foreclosure proceedings. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Appellees were entitled to possession of the real estate in question. We affirm.

Joy Walls, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Decendent Wendell M. Goodwin, v. AC & S, Inc. et al.
03A01-9707-CV-00269
Authoring Judge: Judge Dale Workman
Trial Court Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

This suit was initiated by Plaintiff-Appellant, Wendell Goodwin, against Defendants-Appellees, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, and a number of  other Defendants, seeking damages because of an illness Mr. Goodwin contracted -- specifically a stomach cancer known as peritoneal mesothelioma -- resulting from his occupational exposure to asbestos products manufactured and distributed by the Defendants, including Pittsburgh Corning and Owens-Corning. The Trial Court, in sresonse to the answers supplied by the jury through special interrogatories hereinafter set out, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants because the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable statute of repose, T.C. A . 29 -28 -103(a).

Jacqueline Sue Rogers v. Samuel L. Banks and Cathy J. Stancil - Concurring
03A01-9707-CV-00249
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert M. Summitt

Samuel L. Banks, a doctor, and Cathy J. Stancil, a nurse, appeal a jury verdict rendered against them in favor of their former patient, Jacqueline Sue Rogers.  Ms. Rogers brought two actions of medical malpractice in the Hamilton County Circuit Court.  One action was brought against Dr. Banks, her treating  physician.  The other action was brought against Nurse Stancil.  Nurse Stancil performed the majority of the procedure in question. Judge Robert M. Summitt denied motions for directed verdict after Ms. Rogers presented her case and again after Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil presented their case.  Both actions were submitted to the jury.  The jury returned a general verdict against both Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil for $60,000.  Dr. Banks and Nurse Stancil both filed motions for judgments not withstanding the verdict as well as motions for a new trial.  Judge Summitt overruled these motions and upheld the jury award.  We now reverse the judgment below and dismiss boith suits with prejudice.

In re: Guy S. Davis v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9801-BP-00006
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

The incidents both involved physical altercations, one of which resulted in Davis’s conviction for simple assa ult. This matter is before the Court to determine whether the respondent, Guy S. Davis, should be held in contempt for practicing law after the entry of a thirty-day temporary suspension.

In re: John Mark Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9711-BP-00256
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed in this Court by the Board of Professional Responsibility against John Mark Hancock. The petition alleged that Hancock violated an order of suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, which requires a suspended attorney to notify clients of an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain from taking new cases.

Keith Johnson, v. Fortunes Untold, Inc., D/B/A Easy Money Pawn Shop, et al.
03A01-9710-CV-00464
Authoring Judge: Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Dale Young

The Trial dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for personal injury on the basis that the statute of limitations had run before the action was properly brought, pursuant to Rule 3, T.R.C.P.

Whitehaven Community Baptist Church, Formerly Known as Fairway Missionary Baptist Church, and T.L. James, Sr. v. Alcus Holloway and Geneva Holloway - Concurring
02S01-9709-CH-00084
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

We granted this appeal to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in this case involving claims for recision of contract and unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both issues. Upon review, we affirm the appellate court as modified.¹

State of Tennessee vs. David L. Hathaway
01C01-9703-CR-00094
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

The appellant, David L. Hathaway, appeals as of right his conviction in the Criminal Court of Pickett County. After a bench trial, he was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“D.U.I.”) and was sentenced to a suspended term of six (6) months and one (1) hour in the county jail. The trial court revoked appellant’s driver’s license for one (1) year and ordered him to serve forty eight (48) hours in jail. Appellant was also ordered to pay a $350 fine.

On appeal, the appellant challenges the admissibility of the results of his breathalyser examination and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Jerry J. Roberts v. George Beeler, Etc., et al.
01S01-9710-CH-00216
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor

Thomas Huggins v. Royal Insurance Company
01S01-9708-CH-00178
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: William S. Russell

Martha M. Eden v. Employers Ins. of Wasau Mutual Co., et al .
01S01-9710-CV-00210
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: William S. Russell

Gallatin Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Rosie L. Harris
01S01-9710-CV-00238
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: William S. Russell

State of Tennessee vs. Ronnie L. Ingram
02C01-9707-CR-00260
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

The defendant was indicted, charged, and convicted of burglary and sentenced as a career offender to twelve years imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for burglary since the State failed to prove intent to commit theft. Finding no merit in the defendant’s argument, we affirm.

William Michael Anderton v. Evelyn Adele Morgan Anderton
01A01-9701-CH-00013
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd

Mr. Anderton has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing and a Tenn. R. App. P. 14 motion to consider post-judgment facts with regard to his actual gross income in 1996 and 1997. Ms. Anderton has filed a response to these motions. We have determined that Mr. Anderton’s motions should be granted.

Gretchen Hart, v. Ronald Rick Hart
01A01-9707-CV-00344
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This is a post-divorce decree proceeding to adjust the amount of periodic alimony. The wife has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court increasing the alimony from $1,000 per month to $1,350 per month.

W. Hudson Connery, Jr. et al., v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, et al.
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Twenty former employees of “HealthTrust,” a ____________ sued HealthTrust and its “successor in interest,” Columbia Health Care Corporation, to recover share of stock (or the value thereof) which they had purchased with earned bonuses and for the value of shares of stock due some of the plaintiffs due them upon discharge. Two of the plaintiffs nonsuited, leaving eighteen.

James E. Collins v. Department of Correction
01A01-9709-CH-00558
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

The captioned appellant is a prisoner in the punitive custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. On February 19, 1997, he filed in the Trial Court a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that on November 16, 1996, he filed with the Department a petition for a declaratory order correcting an erroneous entry showing two life sentences which have been merged.

W. Hudson Connery, Jr., et al., v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, et al.
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

W. Huson Connery, Jr., et al. vs. Columbia/HCA Helathcare Corporation, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Twenty former employees of “HealthTrust,” a ____________ sued  HealthTrust and its “successor in interest,” Columbia Health Care Corporation, to recover share of stock (or the value thereof) which they had  purchased with earned bonuses and for the value of shares of stock due some of the plaintiffs due them upon discharge. Two of the plaintiffs nonsuited, leaving eighteen.

State of Tennessee on relation of Ervin Smith and Ervin Smith Individually, v. L. B. Franklin and Alex Richmond, Cit of Carthage, Tennessee, a municipal corporation, Mayor David Bowman
01A01-9710-CH-00546
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. K. Smith

The plaintiff, Ervin Smith, has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court as to his rights in regard to an alleged public right-of-way on property adjoining plaintiff’s land.