APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This non-jury case involves the interpretation of a commercial insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (Hartford) to Pruett Enterprises, Inc. (Pruett). Pruett, the owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in Hamilton County, sued Hartford under the policy for “spoilage losses to various perishable items [caused] when electrical power to [two of Pruett’s] grocery stores was interrupted as a result of a heavy snow blizzard [on or about March 13, 1993].” Each of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Based upon the parties’ stipulation of facts, the trial court granted Hartford partial summary judgment, finding that the loss at 6925 Middle Valley Road, Hixson (“Middle Valley Store”) was not covered by the policy. As to the loss at Pruett’s store at 3936 Ringgold Road, East Ridge (“Ringgold Road Store”), the trial court found a genuine issue of fact and denied Hartford’s motion.

The defendant, Jacob A. Smith, appeals his Knox County jury conviction of unlawful
possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court’s denial of his
motion to continue his trial to attain the assistance of an expert witness. Because the
defendant’s motion for new trial was untimely filed and because we decline to waive the
untimeliness of the defendant’s notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

This is a negligent misrepresentation action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the
attorney responsible for transferring her mother’s assets into an irrevocable trust. The
plaintiff alleged that she approved the transfer because she was erroneously advised that
the terms of the irrevocable trust would require distribution upon her mother’s passing.
The trial court granted summary judgment dismissal in favor of the defendant attorney.
We affirm.

The petitioner, Kris Young, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief,
which petition challenged his convictions of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery,
and aggravated burglary, alleging that the trial court erred in the jury instructions, that the
evidence was insufficient to support the aggravated kidnapping conviction, that the
kidnapping statutes are unconstitutionally vague, that his aggravated kidnapping
conviction violates the principles of double jeopardy, and that trial and appellate counsel
performed deficiently. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.