APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.