COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Rust vs. Rust
01A01-9608-CH-00361
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Thomas G. Honeycutt, and wife Fanny M. Honeycutt, b. Bobby Jerald Price and wife, Betty J. Price
03A01-9610-CH-00329
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Frederick D. McDonald

Defendants Bobby Jerald Price and his wife Betty J. Price, appeal a judgment of the Chancery Court for Knox County wherein the Court fixed the boundary line between property owned by them and property owned by Plaintiffs Thomas G. Honeycutt and his wife, Fanny M. Honeycutt, in accorance with the Honeycutts' insistence. (See Appendix.)

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Tommye Johnson vs. Edward Johnson, Sr.
02A01-9609-Cv-00217
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Marilyn Morgan vs. Velma McCrory
02A01-9604-CV-00072
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Deborah Tuggle vs. Shelby Co. Government, et al
02A01-9606-CV-00147
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown

Vowell Ventures vs. The City of Martin
02A01-9604-CH-00090
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

Nancy Olivieri vs. Paul Oliveri
02A01-9512-CV-00282

Kenneth & Bertie Downing vs. City of Memphis
02A01-9608-CV-00177
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier

Georgia Keys vs. Memphis Carwash, Inc.
02A01-9605-CV-00113
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

Brandy Thatcher, b/n/f vs. Bobby Wyatt, et al
02A01-9605-CH-00114
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis

Portland Utilities Construction v. Chase Creek
M2002-02886-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
A utilities contractor sued a subdivision developer for payment for work it performed on the subdivision's infrastructure. The court found that the developer was obligated to honor its contract by paying for work with a value of $313,829. The court also found that the developer was entitled to an offset of $55,955 for damages resulting from defects in the contractor's performance. The developer argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously declined to grant it additional offsets. We affirm the trial court.

Burgess & Carter vs. Mead Johnson
01A01-9609-CV-00436
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

Nance vs. Nance
01A01-9611-CV-00515
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson

Estate of Edward P. Russell, Deceased
01A01-9611-PB-00516
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
Tracy Moore, B/N/F/ Shirley Moore vs. James Prescott, II 02A01-9609-CV-00227 View

Gentry vs. Gentry
01A01-9611-CH-00512
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

Upper East Tenn. vs. Johnson
03A01-9701-CH-00011

Savco vs. Century
03A01-9611-CV-00360

Crum vs. Lawing
03A01-9610-CH-00320

Bell vs. Carter
03A01-9610-CH-00334

Gozenbach vs. Gozenbach
03A01-9609-CV-00314

Bunch vs. Bunch
03A01-9609-GS-00301

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

Memphis Publishing Company, v. Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board, et al.
01A01-9607-CH-00300
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This case is on appeal for the second time. The Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board and J. W. Luna, as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (hereinafter “Board” or “Appellants”), have appealed from the judgment of the trial court declaring the appellee, Memphis Publishing Company (MPC), eligible for reimbursement from the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund (Fund) for remediation expenses incurred as a result of a release from its underground storage tank in August 1987. The trial court’s decision came after remand from the Middle Section of this Court in Memphis Publishing Company v. Tennessee PetroleumUnderground Storage Tank Board, No. 01A01-9305-CH-00202, 1993WL 476292 (Tenn. App. Nov. 19, 1993), perm. app. denied, c.r.o. There, the court confronted the issue of whether MPC had a right to Fund reimbursement under the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Act (Act), T.C.A. § 68-215-101 et seq., as originally enacted. 1 It was argued that MPC had no right to reimbursement because its release occurred prior to the effective date of the Act, July 1, 1988. This Court, speaking through Judge Lewis, held that the Act, as originally enacted, “was intended to cover, from a Fund reimbursement perspective, all releases regardless of date.” Upon remand, the trial court held the court of appeal’s decision “law of the case” and ruled as hereinabove set forth. It is urged on appeal that the decision rendered in Memphis Publishing is not the “law of the case” regarding MPC’s Fund eligibility and that the trial court erred in so holding. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm.