APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

At issue in this appeal by the Board of Dentistry is the validity and constitutionality of a proposed civil penalty against Harold Richardson for practicing dentistry and operating a dental clinic without a license. Also  called into question is the authority of the Davidson County Chancery Court to resolve, on judicial review of an administrative order, constitutional issues that were not addressed in the administrative order. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Chancery Court has jurisdiction to  consider constitutional issues not addressed in the administrative  proceeding. As a result, the Chancery Court's resolution of those issues in the first Chancery Court proceeding from which Richardson did not appeal, bars consideration of those issues. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed, and this matter is remanded to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings.

This divorce case presents for review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court, that a one-half undivided interest in a tract of real property is marital property within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 4-121(b)(1)(B) (1991). This Court finds that the interest is the husband's separate property, not marital property, thus requiring that the Court of Appeals' decision be reversed.

Gregory Adams Valentine was convicted by a jury of unlawful possessoin of a Schedule VI Substance with intent to manufacture, deliever, or sell (a Class E felony) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class A misdemeanor). We granted his application for review pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Crim. P., in order to determine whether his testimony fulfilled the requirements of Rule 41 (g), Tenn.R.Crim.P., thereby preserving his right to challenge, on appeal, the admission of illegally obtain evidence.

The district attorney general refused to honor an informal immunity agreement1 made with David Edward Howington, the defendant. The reason stated for this refusal was the prosecutor's perception that Howington had not fulfilled his part of the bargain; that is, he had not testified truthfully at his preliminary hearing. He was subsequently tried and convicted of first-degree (felony) murder; he received a life sentence.

The issue in this appeal is whether the Tennessee savings statute1operates to save a medical malpractice action which was initially filed within the three-year statute of repose, but which was voluntarily dismissed and refiled beyond the three-year statute of repose.2 We hold that it does. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court.