APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Appellant D. Dean Graves ("Graves") appeals the chancellor's decision requiring 2 Graves to specifically perform a contract by purchasing an $85,000 parcel of real estate offered for sale by the Appellees, Donald L. Mott ("Mott") and Murl Kennamore ("Kennamore").

This case comes before us as an interlocutory appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 9. The 1This suit was originally filed by a total of fifteen limited partnerships. The claims of the five Keystone Partnerships; to wit: Keystone 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1983-2 Oil an Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Keystone 1984-2 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; and Midco 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership, are not at issue in this appeal. 2 Appellant, Citizens Bank of Tennessee (hereinafter "Citizens"), appeals the chancellor's denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs below, a group of ten
limited partnerships; to wit: Exchequer Associates Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership 1982-1; Exchequer 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Exchequer 1983-2 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnerships; Exchequer Synergy 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; First Energy 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; First Energy 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord 1983-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord II 1984-1 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; Overlord III 1984 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership; and Overlord IV 1984 Oil and Gas Drilling Partnership (hereinafter "Partnerships").1

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.

Kenneth O. Burnett and Vickie S. Burnett ("plaintiffs") filed suit in the Davidson County Circuit Court against Frank E. Krisle, individually and d/b/a Elite Electric ("defendant") seeking damages resulting from a fire caused by defendant's negligence that destroyed plaintiffs' home. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $90,733.56, reduced by a finding that plaintiffs were ten percent (10%) at fault. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal defendant has presented three issues for our consideration: (1) whether there was any material evidence in the record to support the jury verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial or a remittitur; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to present a witness for testifying after defendant had rested his case. We find no error and affirm.