APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, appeals from the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

This is a construction case. The plaintiff construction manager agreed to manage the construction of a restaurant for the defendant restaurant owner. Preliminary documents showed that the construction manager agreed to provide its services for a guaranteed maximum price. During construction, there were unanticipated problems that increased costs. After construction was completed, the construction manager sought payments from the restaurant owner over and above the guaranteed maximum price, but the restaurant owner refused to pay more. The construction manager filed this lawsuit against the restaurant owner, claiming that the parties did not enter into an enforceable contract, and that the restaurant owner should pay the construction manager the reasonable value of its services under a theory of quantum meruit. After a bench trial, the trial court held in favor of the restaurant owner, determining that the parties had entered into a binding fixed price contract. The construction manager now appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's determination and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case involves a denial of coverage under a professional liability insurance policy. The gravamen of this case is whether the Appellant/insurance company received proper notice under the policy, of a claim by Appellee/accounting firm. Appellee/accounting firm purchased the Policy through its usual insurance broker, also an Appellee in this appeal. Appellee/accounting firm notified Appellee/insurance broker of its claim, but no written notice was forwarded to Appellant/insurance company. The trial court found, inter alia, that notice to the Appellee/insurance broker constituted notice to the Appellant/insurance company. Consequently, the trial court entered judgment against Appellant/insurance company and dismissed Appellee/accounting firm's cause of action against Appellee/insurance broker. We reverse and remand.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether (1) the jury based its awards of damages for lost earning capacity and future medical expenses on speculation; (2) the trial court erred when it denied the defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' medical experts; and (3) the trial court erred when it denied an award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs. The defendants contend that there was no material evidence to support the jury's awards of lost earning capacity and future medical expenses and that the trial court should have granted their motion in limine because the court was required to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' medical experts as a sanction for plaintiffs' failure to include those medical experts as experts in the plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories. With regards to prejudgment interest, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it refused to award prejudgment interest because this type of award is applicable to some awards from personal injury cases. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Joe Clark Mitchell, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was being held illegally after the expiration of two consecutive six-year sentences. The trial court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals, seeking review of the trial court’s dismissal of the petition. Following a review of the record and applicable authorities we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This court issued an opinion on November 29, 2005 affirming in part and modifying in part the trial court's judgment, the result of which was an award of damages against Almost Family, Inc., f/k/a Caretenders Health Corporation, (Caretenders) in the amount of $658,886.50 in favor of Franklin Capital Associates, L.P. See Franklin Capital Associates, L.P., v. Almost Family, Inc., f/k/a Caretenders Health Corporation, No. M2003-02191-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3193688, (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2005). On December 9, 2005, Franklin filed a timely petition for this court to rehear that portion of the case relating to the application of a block discount to determine Franklin's damages. Having considered the petition for rehearing, we have concluded the trial court did not err by applying a block discount to determine Franklin's damages. Accordingly, we deny the petition for rehearing.

On November 29, 2005, this court issued an opinion finding that the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (Authority) failed to follow the requirements of then-existing law when it declined to convene a contested case proceeding with regard to BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.’s “Welcoming Reward Program” tariff. Both the Authority and BellSouth have filed timely petitions for rehearing in accordance with Tenn. R. App. P. 39 with regard to portions of that opinion.

The Defendant, Deshawn Turner, was convicted of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine a schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to manufacture, deliver or sell, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to grant his motion to sever his trial from the trial of his co-defendant and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Finding that there exists no reversible
error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Kevin B. Burns, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted of two counts of felony murder and two counts of attempted felony murder and sentenced to death on one count of felony murder and to life imprisonment on the second count of felony murder. His convictions and sentences for first degree felony murder, including the sentence of death, were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Burns, 979 S.W.2d 276 (Tenn. 1998). However, this court reversed the attempted felony murder convictions and sentences, finding these convictions did not constitute a crime in this state. See State v. Kevin Burns, No. 02C01-9605-CR-00170, 1997 WL 418492, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 25, 1997), aff’d, 979 S.W.2d 276 (Tenn. 1998). The pro se petition for post-conviction relief resulted in the appointment of counsel and the filing of two amended petitions. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, and the post-conviction court denied the petitions. On appeal, the petitioner presents a number of claims in four broad categories: (1) he was denied a fair post-conviction evidentiary hearing; (2) he was denied due process; (3) trial counsel were ineffective; and (4) the imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Brent Lemane Duncan, was found guilty of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant received a sentence of three years for the felony and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor, to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve sixty (60) days periodic confinement, to be served on weekends, and assessed fines against Defendant in the amount of $2,500.00 for each conviction. In his appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court committed reversible error by (1) sustaining the State’s objection to cross examination of the victim regarding her background; (2) sustaining the State’s objection to the testimony of Defendant’s mother regarding the reputation of the victim and the victim’s propensity for truthfulness and veracity; and (3) sustaining the State’s objection to Defendant’s attempt to cross-examine the victim regarding prior inconsistent statements. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case arises from lease negotiations between Plaintiff W. Robert Vance, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, Robert C. McEwan, Dane Flippen, and Edward Caldwell (“the Defendants”). After the Defendants ultimately decided not to sign a lease with Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting claims for (1) breach of agreement to enter into a lease agreement; (2) breach of lease agreement; (3) detrimental reliance; (4) fraud and misrepresentation; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. After a trial on the merits, the trial court entered an order disposing of Plaintiff’s contract claims. Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, to Alter or Amend Judgment and/or Make and/or to Make Additional Findings of Fact Pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 59.02, 59.04, and 52.02,” which the trial court denied. Plaintiff appealed.  Because we find that the trial court failed to execute a final order disposing with all of Plaintiff’s asserted causes of action, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 3(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This dispute arose after the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro") rezoned property owned by the plaintiff, The Westchester Company, LLC ("Westchester"), from multi-family to single-family. As a result of the zoning change, Westchester was unable to carry through with its contract to sell the property to a third party for the development of multi-family town houses. Westchester sought a declaratory judgment as to whether it had a vested right in the previous zoning classification by virtue of the fact (1) that it relied upon statements made by Metro employees regarding the then-existing zoning and Westchester's rights under that zone; (2) that the rezoning caused it to lose the profit it would have received under the contract; and (3) that it is potentially liable for breach of contract. As an alternative theory of recovery, Westchester argued that the zoning change amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property. The trial court ruled in favor of Metro and dismissed Westchester's claims. Westchester appeals, but only as to the trial court's determination that it did not have a vested right in the previous zoning. We affirm.

I agree completely with the excellent opinion authored by Judge Lee. I write separately to emphasize what I believe is the most important aspect of this case: the plaintiff, as an incarcerated person, had no place to go, i.e., he could not leave the recreation room to completely avoid the water problem! He was “trapped” along with the seven or eight other inmates in the room. This event happened at night when the sleeping mats of the inmates obviously covered a portion of the floor, thereby further reducing the walking area. I am sure – as the dissent emphasizes – that there was some light in the room; but it obviously wasn’t lighted to the full extent. In the evening, the room was a sleeping area, not a recreation room.

The Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a handwritten pro se petition seeking review by common law writ of certiorari following a denial of parole by the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. The board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, citing several defects with the Appellant’s petition. The trial court granted the Appellant time to cure the defects. The Appellant subsequently filed a motion to amend his petition in an effort to comply with the trial court’s directives, however, the trial court subsequently entered an order dismissing the Appellant’s petition. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a post-trial “Motion to Rehear.”  When the trial court did not address the motion, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.  We hold that the Appellant’s post-trial motion is, in actuality, a motion to alter or amend the judgment, therefore, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the motion.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred when it granted two petitions for writ of certiorari, held that the city court's penalties issued to Marcus Dixon and Anthony Barnett violated Article VI, Section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, and held that the city court's procedure for collection of fines in chronological order violated public policy. The appellant asserts (1) that the appellees' use of petitions for writ of certiorari were used impermissibly as a substitute for appeal; (2) that the issues raised by the appellees in their petitions for writ of certiorari were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (3) that the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. City of Chattanooga, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001), applied prospectively and, thus, did not apply to the appellees' penalties; and (4) that the city court's collection of fines in chronological order was not against public policy. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The State of Tennessee appeals the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action. The property owner was awarded her discretionary costs after the jury awarded her damages in excess of that tendered by the State. The State contends it is exempt from discretionary costs in eminent domain actions. We agree.

The majority finds defendant 100% at fault in the face of the Trial Court’s ruling that each party was 50% at fault. In my opinion, the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that plaintiff was 50% at fault for his fall and injuries. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

The petitioner, Robert Michael Winters, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue on appeal is whether the petition was timely filed. The judgment is affirmed.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, contending that: (1) counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea; and (2) his pleas were coerced by counsel's assurances that he would be placed in the DeBerry Special Needs Facility. Upon review, we conclude that counsel explained the consequences of the pleas with the petitioner and that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, as it was made clear to the him that placement was not part of his plea agreement but was within the discretion of the Department of Correction. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

In this appeal, we are asked by the appellant to determine whether the probate court erred when it did not include income earned from the decedent's intellectual property after July 1, 2000 when it calculated the surviving spouse's elective share under the changing fraction method pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Principal and Income Act. The appellees assert that this issue was decided in the first appeal of this case and that the ruling in that appeal is the law of the case. We affirm.

The issue presented in this slip-and-fall case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Plaintiff and Defendants were each 50% at fault and dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit. While incarcerated in the Loudon County jail, James K. Cannon slipped on a floor wet from rainwater leaking through the ceiling and window frame of his cell. Because we find that (1) Defendants were responsible for creating the hazardous condition, and had prior notice of the hazardous condition and opportunity to remedy it but did not, and (2) Mr. Cannon had little, if any, opportunity to avoid the known risk of walking to the bathroom on a wet floor in rubber “flip-flop” type sandals, we reverse the trial court’s finding that Mr. Cannon was 50% at fault. We hold the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that Defendants were 100% at fault in the accident causing Mr. Cannon’s injury, and remand the case for a determination and award of damages.

This appeal arises from a paternity action. The trial court, inter alia, established paternity, awarded custody of the parties' six month old child to Mother, established Father's co-parenting time, ordered Father to pay the birth expenses, and a portion of Mother's lost wages incurred as a result of giving birth to the child. Father appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On October 21, 2005, this court issued an opinion vacating the trial court's December 14, 2001 order admitting Joseph Owen Boote, Jr.'s will and first two codicils to probate in solemn form. In re Estate of Boote, No. M2002-02234-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 2739287, at *21 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2005). We instructed the trial court on remand to determine first whether the third codicil to Mr. Boote's will was properly executed, and then, if the trial court determined that it was, to conduct further proceedings preliminary to a will contest. In re Estate of Boote, 2005 WL 2739287, at *21. On October 31, 2005, Mr. Boote's daughters, Helen Boote Shivers and Linda Boote Gerritsen, filed a timely petition for rehearing, and on November 3, 2005, we entered an order requesting supplemental briefing on one of the issues raised in the petition. Ms. Shivers and Ms. Gerritsen, as well as Martha M. Boote, Mr. Boote's widow, have now filed their supplemental briefs. Having carefully considered the petition for rehearing and the supplemental briefs, we deny the petition for rehearing.

This appeal involves the decision of the Davidson County, Tennessee, Juvenile Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction, other than temporary emergency jurisdiction, in a child custody case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves a continuing post-divorce dispute regarding child support and related issues. Seven years after the divorce, the former husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Marshall County requesting the court to recalculate his child support obligation and to re-establish visitation that had been suspended earlier because of non-payment of child support and failure to abide by the court's orders. The former wife responded by requesting that her former husband be held in contempt for failing to comply with the earlier court orders. Following a bench trial, the court entered an order finding the former husband in "civil" contempt. The court sentenced the former husband to a mandatory ten-day jail sentence and ordered that he remain incarcerated until he paid a portion of his child support arrearage and other financial obligations. The court also recalculated the former husband's child support obligation and ordered the resumption of visitation. On this appeal, the former husband takes issue with the contempt judgment, the earlier suspension of his visitation, and the denial of his request to claim the children as dependents for income tax purposes. While we have determined that the judgment of contempt cannot stand because it is procedurally defective, we find that the remainder of the trial court's August 22, 2003 order is legally and factually sound.