APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

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.

We accepted the application for review filed pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. App.P. In these four cases in order to determine whether the fresh-complaint doctrine recently modified in State v. Kendricks 1 applies in cases wherein a child is the victim of abuse. For the reasons below appearing, we hold that the fresh-complaint doctrine does not apply in such cases.

This defendant was convicted of murder in the perpetration of armed robbery and sentenced to death. On direct appeal this Court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the case for resentencing because of erroneous jury instructions.

This defendant was convicted of murder in the perpetration of armed robbery and sentenced to death. On direct appeal this Court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the case for resentencing because of erroneous jury instructions.1

We granted review of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(A), in order to determine, inter alia, whether the provisions contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-241(a)(1) [the multiplier statute], limiting an employee's permanent partial disability award to two and one-half (2½) times the medical impairment rating in cases in which the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at awage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, apply to injuries involving scheduled members

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court found that the
record shows, as a matter of law, that the defendant banks did not breach the duty of good faith in imposing fees for returned checks drawn on accounts with insufficient funds.
This Court concurs in the decision made by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.