Court of Appeals Opinions

Format: 04/20/2014
Format: 04/20/2014
01A01-9505-CH-00189
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Court of Appeals 10/23/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/21/95
Duncan v. Crawford, Maryville, For The Appellant.
03A01-9507-PB-00230
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Inman
Court of Appeals 10/20/95
03A01-9507-GS-00217
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Inman
Court of Appeals 10/20/95
03A01-9505-CV-00143
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Inman
Hamilton County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
02A01-9405-CV-00114
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
Allen D. Heflin and wife Jean LaRue Heflin, as natural parents and next-of-kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v. Stewart County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9504-CV-00131
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge:

I concur with the result of the majority's opinion but add this separate opinion to state my understanding of the source and nature of the duty of prison officials to persons who are placed involuntarily in their custody.

Stewart County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
Allen D. Heflin and wife, Jean LaRue Heflin, as Natural Parents and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v., Stewart County, Tennessee, et al.
01A01-9504-CV-00131
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The captioned plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their suit against the defendant, Stewart County, Tennessee, arising out of the suicide of Hugh Allen Heflin in the Stewart County Jail. No complaint is made on appeal as to the summary dismissal of all other defendants. This suit is limited to damages for pain and suffering of deceased. Damages for wrongful death have been recovered in federal court.

Stewart County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
In re: Estate of Harold L. Jenkins, Deceased, Hugh C. Carden and Donald Garis, Co-Executors/Appellees, v. Billy R. Parks
01A01-9504-CH-00135
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

The claimant, Billy R. Parks, has appealed from a summary judgment of the Probate Court dismissing his claim against the captioned estate. Appellant presents the issues in the following form: 1. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks had no legal basis for making a claim on the theories of implied or quasi contract, or a theory of unjust enrichment of Mr. Jenkins. 2. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks could not recover under an implied or quasi contract theory because of the existence of an express contract between the parties.

Sumner County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95
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.
Trial Court Judge:

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 County Court of Appeals 10/20/95