Court of Appeals Opinions

Format: 10/20/2014
Format: 10/20/2014
02A01-9502-CV-00019
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Janice M. Holder
Shelby County Court of Appeals 03/14/96
01A01-9509-CH-00419
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
Hickman County Court of Appeals 03/13/96
01A01-9509-CH-00394
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury County Court of Appeals 03/13/96
01A01-9507-CH-00310
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/13/96
Thomas v. White
01A01-9507-CH-00310
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Brandt
Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/13/96
03A01-9509-CV-00306
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
Carter County Court of Appeals 03/12/96
02A01-9310-CH-00219
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Shelby County Court of Appeals 03/12/96
02A01-9411-CV-00258
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
Court of Appeals 03/11/96
Demetreous Flengas, v. Kimberly Denise Flengas
03A01-9508-CV-00281
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge William M. Barker

Demetreous Flengas, the husband, and Kimberly Denise Flengas, the wife, were granted an absolute divorce in September 1994 in Hamilton County. Shortly thereafter, the Trial Court entered its memorandum opinion and order which directed the division of the parties' assets and liabilities. It is from this order that the husband appeals.

Hamilton County Court of Appeals 03/10/96
Canonie Energy, Inc. and WGI, Inc. v. Rodney King, Mark Holbrook, American Resources Management, Inc., American Gas Technologies, Inc., American Energy Exploration, Inc., Berrod, Inc. Rick Castor and McCrome LTD., Inc.
03A01-9506-CH-00200
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor WilliamE.

The Defendants appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiffs for the enforcement of a settle ment agreement.

Anderson County Court of Appeals 03/10/96
Ron Christian, v. Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board, and J.W. Luna, as Commissioner of Tennesse Department of Environment and Conservation
01A01-9508-CH-00368
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

For a second time we address this matter which concerns Appellant Ron Christian's eligibility for assistance from the petroleum underground storage tank fund, established in T.C.A. § 68-215-110. The Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board (Board), an appellee in this action,1 found Christian ineligible for assistance due to his failure to reestablish fund eligibility by, inter alia, failing to conduct a site check of his property. Upon review in the chancery court, the Board's decision was upheld. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/08/96
Jack Lloyd Beaty, Sr., v. Mary Joyce Scott Beaty
01A01-9507-CH-00325
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Williams
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Henry Denmark Bell

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Wife/Appellant is entitled to post judgment interest on a judgment of $50,000 awarded her by the decree of divorce entered December 28, 1992.

Williamson County Court of Appeals 03/08/96
Angie Brooks, v. Kimberly J. Quam Davis and Gayle Schaal - Concurring
01A01-9509-CV-00402
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.s
Trial Court Judge:

Two persons injured in a one-car accident sued the driver of the car in which they were riding. After obtaining an essentially worthless judgment against the unknown driver of another car, the passengers perfected this appeal to take issue with the trial court’s decision to permit their driver to rely on a “phantom automobile” defense even though she had not included this defense in her answer. The majority has determined that the trial court properly permitted the driver to assert this defense and to amend her pleadings to conform to the proof. While I concur with the majority’s decision under the circumstances of this case, I have prepared this separate opinion to avoid leaving a mistaken impression that the driver’s answer complied with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03. It did not; however, the error does not undermine the jury’s verdict in this case.

Court of Appeals 03/08/96