TAM-BYTES

August 4, 2014
Vol. 17, No. 31
2014 TAM CLE CALENDAR
Webinars
False Claims Act Recovery and Protection for Whistleblowers, 60-minute
webinar presented by Larry Golston, Montgomery attorney, on Wednesday,
August 27, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit.

Retaliatory Discharge in Tennessee: 2014 Law and Other New
Developments, 60-minute webinar presented by David L. Johnson & Valeria
Gomez, Nashville attorneys, on Tuesday, September 16, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3
p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit.

Tech Advice for the Non-Techy Attorney: Keeping Pace with E-Discovery
and Other Tech Issues, 60-minute webinar presented by Alex Khoury, Atlanta,
attorney, on Wednesday, September 17, at 2 p.m. (Central), 3 p.m. (Eastern).
*Earn 1 hour of GENERAL credit.

On-Site Events
Personal I njury Law Conference for Tennessee Attorneys
Friday, September 26 Nashville School of Law
TOPICS: Get up to date on the hottest issues in Tennessee personal injury practice,
including the latest products liability developments, trial tips from a trial judge,
handling medical records and private information, limitations on the use of HIPAA
protected documents in litigation, Affordable Care Act concerns, auto insurance
policies, negotiating with insurance adjusters, caps on damages, Medicare set-
asides, and maintaining client confidentiality.

FACULTY: Davidson County Circuit Judge Joe Binkley, along with plaintiffs
and defense attorneys: Brandon Bass, J. Randolph Bibb, Rebecca Blair, Steven
Fuller, Bryan Moseley, David Randolph Smith, and Mathew Zenner.
*Earn 7.5 hours of CLE credit, including 1 hour of DUAL credit



Probate & Estate Planning Conference for Tennessee Attorneys
Thursday & Friday, October 23-24
Nashville School of Law

TOPI CS: Spend 2 days with some of the states top estate planning and probate
practitioners offering tips on advanced estate planning strategies, drafting QTIPs,
GRATs, and QPRTs, will drafting in 2014, the intersection of family law and
estate planning issues, use of Medicaid-compliant annuities, hot topics in probate
litigation, practicing in probate court, and updates on issues related to trusts, estate
planning, and probate. Also, hear about ethical issues arising when crafting a
healthcare power of attorney, a living will, or an advance care plan and ethical
issues arising in estate administration, such as client confidentiality, billing
inquiries, and other difficult-to-resolve dilemmas.

FACULTY: Elaine Beeler, Williamson County Clerk & Master; Will Bell,
Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell; Rebecca Blair, The Blair Law Firm; David
Callahan, Goodman Callahan & Blackstone; Peter T. Dirksen, U.S. Trust, Bank
of America Private Wealth Management; Harlan Dodson, Dodson, Parker, Behm
& Capparella; Donald Farinato, Holbrook Peterson Smith; Carla Lovell,
Sherrard & Roe; Barbara Boone McGinnis, Elder Law Practice of Timothy L.
Takacs; Hunter R. Mobley, Howard Mobley Hayes & Gontarek; Jeff Mobley,
Howard, Mobley Hayes & Gontarek; Al Secor, CapitalMark Bank & Trust; Tim
Takacs, CELA, Elder Law Practice of Timothy L. Takacs; and Pam Wright,
CELA, West Tennessee Legal Services.
*Earn up to 13 hours of CLE credit, including 2 hours of DUAL credit.

******************************************************************
Law Conference for Tennessee Practitioners
Thursday & Friday, November 13-14
Marriott Franklin/Cool Springs

TOPI CS: Overview of the changes to the workers compensation law for injuries
occurring on or after July 1, 2014, as well as how claims will be decided by the
claims courts; compliance issues for attorneys subject to HIPAA; latest
developments in medical malpractice, including how the appellate courts have
ruled on compliance with the pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith
requirements; how to embrace your inner digital lawyer and get up to date on
issues such as mobile computing, file management, and the risks of going
mobile; what every litigator needs to know about business entity laws in
Tennessee; latest developments in the family law area; checklist for provisions to
be included in a will today; recent changes to the rules on computer calls; how to
use a little-known VA benefit to aid your clients; overview of the administrative
process in Tennessee from an experienced chancellor; ins and outs of standards of
review and the scope of the appellate practice from an appellate court judge; tips
from a chancellor on pretrial motion practice; an insiders perspective from the
Chief Disciplinary Counsel on the Boards recent developments; how to avoid e-
discovery ethical pitfalls and how to handle social media, e-mail, video, and other
electronically stored information; and insight from a former trial judge and now
special judge on displaying professionalism in the practice of law.

FACULTY: Judge John McClarty, Court of Appeals, Eastern Section; Judge
Don R. Ash, Senior Judge, Tennessee Senior Judge Program; Chancellor Ellen
Hobbs Lyle, Chancery Court, Davidson County; Chancellor Carol McCoy,
Chancery Court, Davidson County; Fred Baker, Wimberly Lawson Wright Daves
& Jones PLLC; Harlan Dodson, Dodson Parker Behm and Capparella PC; Sandy
Garrett, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Board of Professional Responsibility; Randy
L. Kinnard, Kinnard, Clayton & Beveridge; Kevin Levine, DeSalvo & Levine
PLLC; Helen S. Rogers, Rogers, Kamm & Shea; Lucas R. Smith, Bass, Berry &
Sims PLC; Richard Spore, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC; Elizabeth Warren, Bass,
Berry & Sims PLC; and John Watts, Watts & Herring, LLC
*Earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit, including 3 hours of DUAL credit.

IN THIS WEEKS TAM-Bytes

Supreme Court rejects contention that TCA 27-5-103 requires bond in
unlimited amounts for appeals from general session court;
In healthcare liability action, Court of Appeals rules trial court did not abuse
discretion in concluding that experts annual income from serving as expert
witness was both relevant and certainly discoverable, as well as
appropriate subject for cross-examination by defense counsel;
Court of Appeals holds survival clause that clearly and unambiguously
provides for contractual reduction of statutory filing period will be
interpreted as doing so;
Court of Appeals rules that claim under Tennessee Adult Protection Act is
governed by one-year statute of limitation for actions for injuries to person;
Court of Criminal Appeals says trial judge erred by finding that defendant
voluntarily consented to taking of DNA sample but did not err by admitting test
results obtained utilizing that sample under independent source doctrine; and
Sixth Circuit holds that while defendant may not have slept in over 24 hours,
his coherent and alert nature in responding to police questioning weighs in
favor of district courts refusal to suppress defendants statement to police.


SUPREME COURT

APPEAL & ERROR: Aside from standard court cost of $150 for appeal from
general sessions court to circuit court, TCA 8-21-401(i) provides list of other costs
that are taxable in all courts and may be charged in addition to the fees for cases
listed in this section; although amount of court costs taxed in given case cannot be
determined until case has been concluded, nothing in TCA 27-5-103 requires that
bond be in unlimited amount; cash bond is sufficient to satisfy appeal bond
requirement of TCA 27-5-103; if defendant is dissatisfied with amount of
plaintiffs posted security, it may move circuit court to order that plaintiff provide
additional security. Griffin v. Campbell Clinic P.A., 7/21/14, Jackson, Holder,
unanimous, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/griffinwopn.pdf


WORKERS COMP PANEL

WORKERS COMPENSATION: Evidence did not preponderate against trial
courts finding that employees injuries were caused by ladder falling on his head
on 1/4/08 when supervisor, who was standing by employee, observed cut on
employees head, employee immediately told his supervisor that something
wasnt right, employee, who was kind of out of it from blow to his head, was
hospitalized for week, after he returned to work in 2/08, employees symptoms
worsened to point that he could no longer perform his responsibilities, and doctor
believed that being struck by ladder caused employees problems and necessitated
his surgery. Wilcutt v. CAM Electric Service, 7/28/14, Jackson, Harris, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/wilcuttopn.pdf


COURT OF APPEALS

EVIDENCE: In healthcare liability action in which trial court entered several
orders requiring expert witness to provide requested financial information, which
related to his income and compensation, but expert witness repeatedly failed to
comply with trial courts orders, trial court did not abuse discretion in concluding
that experts annual income from serving as expert witness was both relevant and
certainly discoverable, as well as appropriate subject for cross-examination by
defense counsel; trial court did not abuse discretion in ruling that defense counsel
would be permitted to ask expert at trial about the dollar amount of his expert
witness income for a prior year, such as the year 2010, among others; trial court
did not abuse discretion in excluding expert as witness when plaintiff and expert
repeatedly had knowingly failed to comply with trial courts orders, despite
multiple opportunities and generous extensions of deadlines, and although expert
finally emailed affidavit to trial court, he attempted to impose his own notices to
trial court regarding its use and confirmed that he would not answer questions at
trial that trial judge had already ruled that defense counsel could ask. Laseter v.
Regan, 7/24/14, WS, Highers, 30 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/laseterlindaopn.pdf

EMPLOYMENT: When plaintiff alleged that he was standing nearby when co-
worker sustained work-related injury and that he was unlawfully terminated after
injured co-worker filed workers compensation claim, trial court properly
dismissed retaliatory discharge action against employer for failure to state claim
upon which relief can be granted; plaintiff does not allege that he was terminated
because of his own exercise of statutory or constitutional right, and he was not
injured employee attempting to exercise his right to seek workers compensation
benefits as result of work-related accident; plaintiff points to no authority for his
apparent position that retaliatory discharge action recognized in Clanton v. Cain
Sloan Co., 667 SW2d 441 (Tenn. 1984), should be broadened to encompass
bystanders, co-workers, or witnesses to work-related injuries sustained by another
employee. Patrick v. Nelson Global Products I nc., 7/30/14, ES, Susano, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/patrickpdopn.pdf

EMPLOYMENT: In case in which plaintiff, bookkeeper for defendant, nursing
home facility, alleging common law retaliatory discharge, violation of Tennessee
Public Protection Act, and violation of Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA),
because plaintiffs causes of action accrued no later than 10/4/10, date her
employment was terminated, amendment to TCA 4-21-311, 50-1-304, and 50-1-
701, which applies to causes of action accruing on or after 6/10/11, that
functionally overrules retaliatory discharge summary judgment analysis in Kinsler
v. Berkline LLC, 320 SW3d 796 (Tenn. 2010), and Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co.,
320 SW3d 777 (Tenn. 2010), did not apply; trial court properly granted defendant
summary judgment on plaintiffs common law and statutory retaliatory discharge
claims; evidence did not create genuine issue of material fact as to essential
element of claim when plaintiffs alleged exercise of protected activity was neither
sole factor nor substantial factor in defendants decision to terminate her
employment when person who made decision to fire plaintiff was unaware of
plaintiffs prior complaints about former administrator and was not apprised of fact
that former employees had filed EEOC claims, and, with respect to statutory claim,
plaintiff presented no evidence that she reported any allegedly illegal activity to
entity other than her superiors at defendant; there was some scant evidence from
which trier of fact might reasonably conclude that plaintiff engaged in conduct
protected by THRA, i.e., speaking out against allegedly discriminatory behavior,
but defendant demonstrated that plaintiffs evidence was insufficient to establish
causal connection between protected activity and materially adverse action, and
hence, summary judgment was properly granted on THRA claim. Weaver v.
Diversicare Leasing Corp., 7/28/14, ES, Susano, 30 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/weaverelopn.pdf

COMMERCIAL LAW: When plaintiff executed employment agreement with
arbitration clause in 2007, employer terminated plaintiff without cause in 4/12,
plaintiff filed suit alleging common law retaliatory discharge and violation of
Tennessee Public Protection Act and Tennessee Human Rights Act, and employer
filed motion to compel arbitration, trial court did not err in enforcing agreement
and ordering arbitration; plaintiff did not show that arbitration costs, imposed by
agreement he freely bargained for plaintiff, in his brief, estimated his claims to
total between $2,000,000 and $6,000,000, and rules of American Arbitration
Association (AAA) provide that for claim between one $1,000,000 and
$5,000,000, total AAA fees would be $11,450, and for claim between $5,000,000
and $10,000,000, total fees would be $14,200 are prohibitively expensive to him.
Trigg v. Little Six Corp., 7/28/14, ES, Susano, 16 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/triggdopn.pdf

CONTRACTS: In suit by buyer of apartment complex against sellers (defendants)
after buyer discovered that several representations made by sellers in transactional
documents were false, trial court properly granted sellers summary judgment on
breach of contract claim when suit was not filed within three years of closing on
Transfer Agreement; survival clause that clearly and unambiguously provides for
contractual reduction of statutory filing period will be interpreted as doing so
regardless of approach taken in interpreting it; survival clause was clearly intended
to operate as contractual limitations period when parties statement that breaching
party will not be released of its liability where party seeking damages commenced
action within three years is clear evidence of parties intent to limit buyers filing
period for breach to three years. Town of Crossville Housing Authority v.
Murphy, 7/25/14, WS at Nashville, Farmer, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/murphyjohna.opn_.pdf

PROPERTY: When deed provided that Ladies Hermitage Association (LHA)
agreed to pay grantor and her heirs one-third of all gate receipts received by
grantee from visitors to Tulip Grove House, and term gate receipts in deed was
determined to include rent paid to LHA for use of property for special events, trial
court erred in holding that LHA can deduct expenses from special event rental fees
prior to calculating heirs one-third share when language of deed requires that
payment be calculated based on total amount of receipt or rental payment received
from visitors, not amount of receipt that LHA actually keeps after it pays
expenses; fact that LHA may ultimately decide to spend portion of receipt it
receives from special events to pay expenses, rather than using its funds on hand,
does not mean that rental fee was not gate receipt when received. Field v.
Ladies Hermitage Association, 7/24/14, WS at Nashville, Highers, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/fieldj.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which decedents siblings filed suit against decedents
friend, to whom decedents will left all of his estate, alleging that friend had
exercised undue influence over their brother to manipulate him into executing will
in violation of Tennessee Adult Protection Act (TAPA), trial court properly ruled
that suit was barred by statute of limitation; TAPA does not provide specific statute
of limitation, and crux of case concerns alleged personal harm of mental anguish
suffered by decedent when he allegedly was manipulated by his friend into
executing new will, and hence, TCA 28-3-104(a)(1), which establishes one-year
limitation for actions for injuries to person, provides pertinent statute of limitation;
trial court did not err in holding that plaintiffs were otherwise unable to prove
claim under TAPA when plaintiff did not allege any sexual abuse or exploitation
under TAPA, complaint does not allege that friend actually obtained decedents
property, and complaint is more accurately characterized as attempted will contest
by individuals who lack standing to contest will. I n re Estate of Wair, 7/23/14, ES
at Nashville, Swiney, 6 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/inreestateofarthurewairjr.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: In case in which parties were divorced in Florida, Florida court
designated mother as primary residential parent of parties only child, soon
thereafter, father moved to Tennessee, years later, Florida court granted father
make-up parenting time by allowing child to live in Tennessee with him for
defined period of time that exceeded six months, mother subsequently relocated to
Alabama, after child had lived with father in Tennessee for over six months, and
father filed petition in Tennessee seeking to modify Florida parenting plan to
designate him as primary residential parent, trial court erred in holding that it did
not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify Florida parenting order under
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); under
UCCJEA, it is not necessary to determine why child has been removed to another
state in order to decide whether new state has acquired home state jurisdiction to
modify initial custody determination existence of home state jurisdiction
depends on purely factual inquiry into where child has actually been living;
because child lived with father for over six consecutive months preceding filing of
Tennessee modification petition, and her stay in Tennessee did not constitute
temporary absence from Florida, at time Tennessee custody proceedings
commenced, Tennessee had home state jurisdiction to make initial custody
determination under UCCJEA; because Tennessee trial court held that it did not
have jurisdiction to adjudicate fathers petition to modify Florida custody order, it
did not take proof or consider whether it should or must decline jurisdiction over
fathers custody modification petition; case is remanded for trial court to exercise
its discretion in accordance with provisions of UCCJEA, and if it declines to
exercise jurisdiction over fathers custody modification petition, to identify
statutory basis for doing so and give specific reasons for its decision, including
any factual findings on which its decision is based. Taylor v. McClintock,
7/25/14, WS at Nashville, Kirby, 24 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/taylorb.c.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not err by failing to consider mothers student
loans and grants in calculating her annual income for child support purposes;
definition of gross income in Child Support Guidelines does not include loans or
student loans, and there is no basis to characterize loans, for which mother incurs
debt, as income; evidence did not preponderate against trial courts finding that
mother should receive child care expense credit of $516 per month when
Guidelines allow average monthly amount to be entered into child support
calculations for [c]hildcare expenses necessary for either parents employment,
education, or vocational training that are determined by the tribunal to be
appropriate, and that are appropriate to the parents financial abilities and to the
lifestyle of the child if the parents and child were living together; considering
recent change in fathers employment and compensation capacity as realtor, and
variability of fathers earning capacity, evidence did not preponderate against trial
courts decision to impute statutory income to father of $37,589 per year. Garrett
v. Elmore, 7/29/14, MS, Clement, 15 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/garretr.opn_.pdf

FAMILY LAW: Trial court did not err in refusing to consider mothers receipt of
alimony from father as income for child support purposes. Rentz v. Rentz, 7/30/14,
ES, McClarty, 8 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/rentzopn.pdf

CIVIL PROCEDURE: In legal malpractice action, tolling agreement between
parties precluded application of saving statute set forth in TCA 28-1-105(a); by its
terms, TCA 28-1-105(a) applies to periods of limitation established by rule or
statute of limitation, and applicable time limitation was established by contract,
not by rule or statute of limitation. Circle Construction LLC v. Nilsen, 7/29/14,
MS, Bennett, 8 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/circlec.const_.opn_.pdf

CIVIL PROCEDURE: When owner of promissory note died, and his widow filed
complaint in name of his estate to collect unpaid balance, even though her late
husbands estate had never been opened, and widow subsequently amended
complaint to designate herself as plaintiff in her capacity as her late husbands wife
and next friend, trial court properly ruled that plaintiff lacked standing to file suit;
as decedents widow, she had legal right to inherit at least part of property
decedent owned at time of his death, whether or not decedent left valid will, but
she could not be decedents sole heir in absence of probated will, because under
laws of intestacy, parties adult daughter would have been entitled to portion of
decedents property; because she did not establish her ownership over note, widow
cannot be real party in interest. Guyear v. Blalock, 7/23/14, MS, Cantrell, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/guyeard.opn_.pdf

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Service on municipality may not be affected by serving
copy of summons and complaint on person other than municipalitys chief
executive officer or its city attorney. Doyle v. Town of Oakland, 7/28/14,
Jackson, WS, 7 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/doylelopn.pdf

GOVERNMENT: When plaintiff, Memphis police officer, sought declaration that
he be promoted to the rank of Captain with full back pay and benefits to the date
of his eligibility for same, trial court erred in granting officer summary judgment;
because officer was temporary employee prior to cut-off date set forth in automatic
promotion provision, he is not entitled to automatic promotion; because there is
express exclusion of temporary employees from retirement system, it would be
illogical to allow plaintiff to utilize temporary service to meet 1/31/79 cut-off date
set out in Section 67 retirement tool when such service is explicitly excluded
for retirement purposes under Ordinance 2696. J ennings v. City of Memphis,
7/24/14, WS, Highers, 10 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/jenningsbryantopn.pdf


COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CRIMINAL LAW: Felony reckless endangerment is appropriate lesser included
offense of aggravated assault in case where offense occurred after 2009
amendment to TCA 40-18-110; double jeopardy does not bar defendants three
felony reckless endangerment convictions when defendant committed multiple
discrete acts each time he pulled trigger of his revolver, aiming and shooting at
multiple named individuals. State v. Isabell, 7/28/14, Jackson, Glenn, 28 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/isabelljadarriusopn.pdf

CRIMINAL LAW: In case in which defendant was charged with various sexual
offenses against victim and was ultimately convicted, after four trials, of especially
aggravated sexual exploitation of minor, trial judge did not err in failing to dismiss
indictment against defendant when trial court was aware that defendant had been
convicted once before of charge on evidence, trial court believed that evidence
against defendant was strong, and although jury in defendants fourth trial sent
three notifications that it was hopelessly deadlocked and split 6 to 6, there was
no evidence presented from defendant that no jury could ever agree on verdict if
presented with substantially same evidence as presented in past trials. State v.
Sharp, 7/28/14, Jackson, Woodall, 14 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sharpcharlesopn_0.pdf

CRIMINAL SENTENCING: In case in which defendant was convicted of three
counts of rape of child, one count of attempted rape of child, and five counts of
aggravated sexual battery, trial judge erred by finding that defendant voluntarily
consented to taking of DNA sample but did not err by admitting test results
obtained utilizing that sample under independent source doctrine; trial judge
erroneously imposed Range II sentence for defendants convictions of rape of child
in violation of ex post facto protections trial judge erroneously applied 2011
amendment to TCA 39-13-522, which took effect in 1/12, to defendants
convictions for offenses committed in 2010; defendants 28-year sentences
imposed for his three rape of child convictions are modified to sentences of 25
years, only sentence available for Range I offender at time defendant committed
offenses at issue. State v. Hernandez, 7/29/14, Nashville, Witt, 55 pages.
http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hernandezpedroignacio.pdf


SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which defendant pled guilty to being
felon in possession of firearm, district court properly denied defendants motion to
suppress his statement to police when irrespective of whether defendant slept
during time he was in police custody, important inquiry is whether interviewing
officers perceived there to be any impairments to defendant giving knowing and
intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights; magistrate judge credited that defendant
awoke between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on July 31, 2008, was arrested in late
evening hours, was held into the early morning hours of August 1, 2008, and was
interrogated in the afternoon and early evening of August 1, 2008, but concluded
that defendant was not too exhausted to knowingly and voluntarily waive his
constitutional rights and provide two statements over period of six hours; while he
may not have slept in over 24 hours, defendants coherent and alert nature in
responding to police questioning weighs in favor of district courts findings.
United States v. Hampton, 7/15/14, McKeague, 10 pages, N/Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0519n-06.pdf

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: In case in which petitioner was convicted of
murdering his wife nearly decade earlier and filed habeas corpus petition
challenging introduction of his jailhouse conversations with co-inmate (Farris),
details of which surrounded plot to kill his in-laws (victims parents), district court
properly denied petitioners request for habeas corpus relief; there is no precedent
which distinguishes among elicited incriminating statements whether they pertain
to charged offense, to uncharged offense, or to no offense whatsoever and so
long as incriminatory statements are introduced in manner in which defendants
right to counsel has already attached, violation occurs; nevertheless, although facts
present close legal question, district court did not unreasonably apply federal law
in upholding admission of incriminating statements made by petitioner to Farris at
petitioners murder trial. March v. McAllister, 7/21/14, Keith, 19 pages, N/Pub.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0532n-06.pdf


If you would like a copy of the full text of any of these opinions, simply click
on the link provided or, if no link is provided, you may respond to this e-mail
or call us at (615) 661-0248 in order to request a copy. You may also view and
download the full text of any state appellate court decision by accessing the
states web site by clicking here: http://www.tncourts.gov