SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

William J. Chase, Jr. vs. City of Memphis
02S01-9703-CV-00019

Frances Blanchard vs. Arlene Kellum, D.D.S.
02S01-9709-CV-00083

Whitehaven Community Baptist Church, Formerly Known as Fairway Missionary Baptist Church, and T.L. James, Sr. v. Alcus Holloway and Geneva Holloway - Concurring
02S01-9709-CH-00084
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Neal Small

We granted this appeal to determine whether summary judgment was properly granted in this case involving claims for recision of contract and unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both issues. Upon review, we affirm the appellate court as modified.¹

In re: John Mark Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9711-BP-00256
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed in this Court by the Board of Professional Responsibility against John Mark Hancock. The petition alleged that Hancock violated an order of suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 18, which requires a suspended attorney to notify clients of an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain from taking new cases.

In re: Guy S. Davis v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9801-BP-00006
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson

The incidents both involved physical altercations, one of which resulted in Davis’s conviction for simple assa ult. This matter is before the Court to determine whether the respondent, Guy S. Davis, should be held in contempt for practicing law after the entry of a thirty-day temporary suspension.

Danny K. Dockery v. Board of Professional Responsibility
01S01-9605-BP-00101
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson

This case arose out of a petition for order of contempt filed by the Board of
Professional Responsibility alleging that Danny Kaye Dockery violated an order of
suspension previously entered by this Court by failing to comply with Tenn. Sup. Ct.
R. 9, § 18. The provisions of Rule 9 require a suspended attorney to notify clients of
an order of suspension, move for withdrawal from pending cases, provide notice to
adverse attorneys when clients have not obtained substitute counsel, and refrain
from accepting new clients.

State of Tennessee v. Howard E. King
02S01-9703-CR-00021
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

We granted permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 11 to Howard E. King, the appellant, in order to address the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-201(b)(2) (Supp. 1994),1 which requires trial courts to instruct juries regarding parole and release eligibility when a jury instruction on the sentencing range is requested by either party. Because we find that the statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or deprive the appellant of his due process right to a fair trial, we conclude that the statute, as applied under the circumstances of this case, is constitutional.

W. Hudson Connery, Jr., et al., v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, et al.
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

W. Huson Connery, Jr., et al. vs. Columbia/HCA Helathcare Corporation, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9709-CH-00529
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Twenty former employees of “HealthTrust,” a ____________ sued  HealthTrust and its “successor in interest,” Columbia Health Care Corporation, to recover share of stock (or the value thereof) which they had  purchased with earned bonuses and for the value of shares of stock due some of the plaintiffs due them upon discharge. Two of the plaintiffs nonsuited, leaving eighteen.

Alexander, et. al. vs. Inman
01S01-9705-CH-00103

Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Joseph Farmer & Debra Farmer
03S01-9707-CH-00081

Billie J. Metcalfe, et al vs. Larry J. Waters, et al
02S01-9704-CV-00027

State of Tennessee vs. Johnny M. Henning
02S01-9707-CC-00065

Evans vs. Steelman
01S01-9701-JV-00019

Evans vs. Steelman
01S01-9701-JV-00019

State vs. Blanton
01S01-9605-CC-00093
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

Jim Parks vs. Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool, et al
02S01-9603-CH-00025

Margaret Benton, Admin.- Est.of Davis Benton vs. City of Springfiled
01S01-9505-CV-00076
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

State vs. Blanton
01S01-9605-CC-00093
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace

State vs. Blanton
01S01-9605-CC-00093

State vs. Jacqueline D. Vickers & William Boone
02S01-9610-CC-00092

State vs. Michael Ralph Alford
02S01-9704-CC-00030

General Electric Company v. Process Control Company
01S01-9707-FD-00148
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge James D. Todd

This case comes to us on a certified question of law. The plaintiff, General Electric Company ("G.E."), filed this action for contribution against Process Control Company ("Process Control"). Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that Tennessee law does not permit a right of contribution in this case. The district court entered an order requesting this Court to address the following certified question of law: In actions that accrue after the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, under what circumstances is a claim for contribution appropriate under Tennessee Law? We accepted certification of the question. We hold that under the facts as certified an action for contribution may be viable.

Win Myint and wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation
of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.

Win Myint and Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company
01S01-9612-CH-00238
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Special Chancellor Christina Norris

In this cause, the insuror refused to pay a claim under a policy of insurance. The insured contends that such refusal constitutes an “unfair or deceptive act or practice,” in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.1 In contrast, the insuror insists that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56- 7-105,2 commonly known as the “bad faith statute,” is the exclusive remedy for the bad faith denial of an insurance claim. Because Title 56, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Tennessee Code comprehensively regulates the insurance industry, the insuror insists that the acts and practices of an insurance company are never subject to the Consumer Protection Act.