01C01-9408-CR-00297
01C01-9408-CR-00297
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-9410-CC-00348
01C01-9410-CC-00348
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-9410-CR-00335
01C01-9410-CR-00335
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-9411-CC-00373
01C01-9411-CC-00373

Williamson Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-9503-CR-00077
01C01-9503-CR-00077
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

01C01-94l2-CR-004l2
01C01-94l2-CR-004l2
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

Walter Lee Steele and Jennie Brown, Individually and as Next-of-Kin of or Guardian of Melvin Lee Steele, Deceased, v. Tennessee Jaycees, Inc., et al.
01A01-9505-CH-00214
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Tennessee Jaycees and the other appellees, on the ground that the statute of limitations had passed prior to the filing of the appellants' wrongful death complaint against them. Because we do not find that the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the trial court.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Stones River Utilities, Inc., v. Metropoltian Government of Nashville, Davidison County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
01-A-01-9505-CH-00217
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

This is a contract dispute in which the chancellor found that the uncontradicted proof showed that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the acts alleged in the complaint. We reverse on the single ground of estoppel and remand for further proceedings on that issue alone.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Gloria Keene and husband, Edward Keene, v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
01A01-9505-CV-00211
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Gloria and Edward Keene, from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to defendant/appellee, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Cracker Barrel").

Davidson Court of Appeals

William Barry Martin, v. Marny Anne Martin
01A01-9505-CV-00222
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

In this divorce case, the defendant/wife has appealed from that portion of the divorce decree which granted to the plaintiff/husband sole custody of the daughter of the parties, aged 4 1/2 years at the time of judgment, 5 years at the present time.

Davidson Court of Appeals

William Wayne Bray, v. Wanda Lee Jones Bray
01A01-9506-CV-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

In this case the husband has appealed the trial judge's award of $14,750 to the wife as her share of the marital property. The trial judge made the following findings: that the husband's property had increased in value during the marriage in the amount, when added to the value of some property acquired by the parties, of $34,000; that the cattle acquired by the parties had a negative value of $4,500, leaving a net value of $29,500; that the wife had made a contribution to the preservation and appreciation of the property; that the wife had a greater need than the husband; and that the husband had a greater ability to produce income in the future. Taking the net increase in the marital estate of $29,500 the trial judge then awarded half of it to the wife.

Clay Court of Appeals

Tammy R. Ganzevoort, v. Richard B. Russell, Martha T. Russell, and Jim Cassetty, D/B/A Cassetty Realty
01A01-9502-CV-00038
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas Goodall

The Circuit Court of Sumner County awarded the purchaser of a home a judgment against the sellers and their real estate agent, for deceptive practices as defined in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Because we find that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the plaintiff suffered any ascertainable harm from a deceptive act, we reverse.

Sumner Court of Appeals

03A01-9506-CV-00209
03A01-9506-CV-00209

Court of Appeals

03C01-9311-CR-00385
03C01-9311-CR-00385

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

01A01-9505-CH-00189
01A01-9505-CH-00189

Court of Appeals

01S01-9502-FD-00024
01S01-9502-FD-00024

Hamilton Supreme Court

02S01-9407-CR-00044
02S01-9407-CR-00044

Supreme Court

02S01-9407-CR-00044
02S01-9407-CR-00044

Supreme Court

Michael Cantrell v. Walker Die Casting
M2001-00693-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
This case involves a denial of medical benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The Appellee was covered under an employee benefit plan which falls within the purview of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellee as to the Appellant's liability for payment of the expenses resulting from the accident. We reverse the decision of the trial court, finding Appellee's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit fatal to his cause.

Marshall Court of Appeals

Mid-South Bank & Trust Co., V.R. Williams & Co., and Franklin County Bank, v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr., and Paux Max Quandt, III
01A01-9403-CH-00107
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Greer, Jr.

This appeal represents a consolidation of three actions. The first case, styled V.R. Williams & Company v. Paul M. Quandt and Nelle Quandt, is an appeal to Circuit Court from a judgment in the General Sessions Court of Franklin County finding Paul Quandt indebted to V.R. Williams & Co. in the amount of $3664.69 for past due insurance premiums. The second case, styled In Re: Estate of Paul Max Quandt, Deceased, is a probate proceeding filed in the Chancery Court of Franklin County to administer the estate of Paul Max Quandt. The only issues in the probate proceeding heard on consolidation concern creditors' claims filed against Paul Quandt's estate and the exceptions filed thereto. The third case, styled Mid-South Bank & Company, V.R. Williams & Company and Franklin County Bank v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr. and Paul Max Quandt, III., is a Chancery Court action to set aside fraudulent conveyances of property owned by Paul M. Quandt Defendants/Appellants

Franklin Court of Appeals

Judy Pewitt, v. Lillie Buford, A. Cliff Frensley and Williamson County, Tennessee
01A01-9501-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

This appeal involves a suit primarily based onthe Public Employee Political Freedom Act of 1980, T.C.A. §§ 8-50-601 - 8-50-604 (1993) (hereinafter PEPFA). Plaintiff, Judy Pewitt, appeals from the circuit court's summary judgment order dismissing Pewitt's PEPFA and retaliatory discharge claims against defendants, Lillie Buford, Cliff Frensley, and Williamson County

Williamson Court of Appeals

Charles K. Newsom, v. Textron Aerostructures, a division of Avco, Inc.; and Gary L. Smith, individually
01A01-9504-CH-00151
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a suit brought by an employee against his employer asserting that the employer's actions, in connection with the employee's demotion and subsequent termination, violated The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), T.C.A. § 4-21-101 (1991), et. seq. The employee also alleges that the employer's actions in connection with the demotion and termination were slanderous and constituted outrageous conduct. Plaintiff employee, Charles K. Newsom, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Textron Aerostructures, Inc., and Gary Smith,1 and the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in so doing. The pertinent facts are as follows.

Davidson Court of Appeals

Maxie L. Nichols and W. Max Nichols, v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp.
01A01-9506-CH-00247
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' fraud and contract allegations. Appellants are William Max Nichols, maker of certain notes representing student loans, and his father, Maxie L. Nichols, who was co-maker on said notes. The Appellee is Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), a non-profit corporation created by the General Assembly to guarantee and administer loans made by educational institution lenders to students attending post-secondary schools in Tennessee. T.C.A. § 49-4-203(1)- (3) (1990).

Davidson Court of Appeals

William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, Grandparents, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley)
01A01-9503-PB-00121
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge James R. Everett

This appeal arises from post-divorce decree proceedings to increase and enforce child
support. On October 11, 1994, the Trial Court entered an order finding the husband guilty of
willful contempt, awarded the wife judgment for $10,054 arrears child support, increased
weekly payments, awarded attorneys' fees and ordered the husband to be confined in the
workhouse for six months.

Davidson Court of Appeals

William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley) - Concurring
01A01-9503-PB-00121
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court placed limits on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in federal court. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 107 S. Ct. 2124 (1987). This appeal calls upon us to decide whether similar limitations should be placed on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in state court. The majority has declined to adopt the reasoning of the Young decision based on an
unduly narrow view of this court's responsibility. I cannot join the majority’s opinion. Instead, I would find that the resolution of this important question must await another day because the appellant has waived his right to raise the issue by failing to make a timely demand for another prosecutor in the trial court.

Davidson Court of Appeals