Court of Appeals Opinions

Format: 12/21/2014
Format: 12/21/2014
Loria vs. Loria
01A01-9609-CH-00441
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark
Williamson County Court of Appeals 03/12/97
Samson vs. Hartsville Hospital
01A01-9609-CH-00430
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
Trousdale County Court of Appeals 03/12/97
Jackson vs. Corrections Corp. of America
01A01-9606-CH-00276
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/12/97
Jackson vs. Corrections Corp. of America
01A01-9606-CH-00276
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/12/97
02A01-9606-CH-00144
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Obion County Court of Appeals 03/11/97
02a01-9605-CH-00101
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Shelby County Court of Appeals 03/11/97
03A01-9609-CV-00289
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Knox County Court of Appeals 03/10/97
Lue Ann Smith, v. Winchester City Council, et. al.
01A01-9609-CV-00419
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Lue Ann Smith, from an order of the Franklin County Circuit Court quashing her writ of certiorari. The writ suspended the decisions of respondent/appellee, the Winchester City Council (“the Council”), allowing intervening petitioner, Karl Smith, permission and denying Appellant permission to sell fire works within the City of Winchester. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows.

Franklin County Court of Appeals 03/08/97
IN RE: Estate of Foster Hume, III; The University of the South v. Meredith Klank - Concurring
01A01-9609-PB-00432
Authoring Judge: Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

The University of the South, residuary legatee under the will of Foster Hume, deceased, has appealed from the judgment of the Probate Court holding that a specific devise to Meredith Klank was not extinguished by ademption and therefore the subject of the specific devise did not become a part of the residuary estate.

Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/05/97
William Depriest, Gates-Pate-McDaniel, Henry H Headden, Joel P. Morris, Maurice Pinson, Richard R. Standel, Jr., and W.O. Vaughan, Jr., v. 1717-19 West End Associates., et. al
01A01-9609-CH-00428
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

The captioned plaintiffs have appealed from the summary dismissal of their various claims by the trial court. The various claims and defenses on appeal arose from a failed investment scheme, and are illustrated by the following issues presented by the parties:

Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/05/97
Frank McNeil, MD. and Janet McNeil, M.D., et. ux. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners - Concurring
01A01-9608-CH-00383
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge:

The orders handed down by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners on March 6, 1995 can stand only if the board’s conclusions are supported by substantial and material evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h)(5) (Supp. 1996). Cases of this sort require either admissions by the accused physician, Williams v. State Dep’t of Health & Env’t, 880 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), or expert proof concerning the standard of professional conduct alleged to have been violated. Williams v. Tennessee Bd. of Medical Examiners, App. No. 01A01-9402-CH-00060, 1994 WL 420910, at *6-8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 1994) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed).

Court of Appeals 03/05/97
Richard E. Finch vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. - Concurring
01A01-9607-CV-00342
Authoring Judge: Judge Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

This appeal addresses the issue of whether the “innocent co-insured doctrine,” first recognized by our supreme court in Spence v. Allstate Insurance Co., 883 S.W.2d 586 (Tenn. 1994), should be extended so as to permit the appellant, Richard E. Finch (Finch) to recover under an insurance policy, issued by the appellee, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (TFMIC), for loss to property held jointly with his co-insured spouse whose intentional acts caused the loss. The trial court  interpreting Tennessee case law to disallow such recovery primarily “on the basis of policy considerations,” entered a summary judgment for TFMIC.1 Finch challenges the correctness of that decision. For reasons to be set forth, we reverse and remand.

Bedford County Court of Appeals 03/05/97
Tennessee Consumer Advocate, v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority and United Cities Gas Company
01A01-9606-BC-00286
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge:

The petitioner, Tennessee Consumer Advocate, has petitioned this Court for review of administrative decisions of the Tennessee Public Services Commission pursuant to T.R.A.P. Rule 12. By order entered by this Court on October 3, 1996, the review is limited to an order entered by the Commission on May 3, 1996. However, the circumstances stated hereafter require reference to an order previously entered by the Tennessee Public Service Commission on May 12, 1995.

Davidson County Court of Appeals 03/05/97