Supreme Court Opinions

Format: 09/18/2014
Format: 09/18/2014
01S01-9509-CV-00150
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
01S01-9507-CR-00110
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
01S01-9507-CR-00110
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
03S01-9509--CV-00112
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/13/96
03S01-9511-CH-00122
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: John K. Byers
Supreme Court 09/11/96
Charles M. Cary, Jr., v. Cathy Ann Cary
02S01-9505-CV-00035
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge:

Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion to amend the judgment to delete the award of attorney fees, the Court concludes that the motion is without merit and should be denied. It is so ORDERED.
 

Jackson County Supreme Court 09/09/96
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, A/K/A Otis Smith
02S01-9502-CR-00014
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge:

The State has requested a rehearing in this case. The Court has considered the petition and finds it to be without merit. The petition to rehear is denied. The Members of the Court adhere to the positions stated in the original Opinions in this cause.  It is so ORDERED.

Supreme Court 09/09/96
Frank L. White v. Hubert A. McBride, Executor - Cocurring
02S01-9510-PB-00104
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard Pierotti

This case presents the question of whether the plaintiff, attorney Frank White,may recover attorney’s fees from the estate of Kasper McGrory. This broad question may, in turn, be divided into two specific subissues: (1) whether the contingency fee contract between White and McGrory is “clearly excessive” under Disciplinary Rule 2-106 of the Code of Professiona Responsibility, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, and is, thus, unenforceable; and (2) if the contingency fee contract is unenforceable, whether White may, nevertheless, recover attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit basis. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the contract is unenforceable and that White is not entitled to recover under the theory of quantum meruit. Because the probate court and the Court of Appeals held that White could not recover under the contract, but could recover on a quantum meruit basis, we reverse the latter part of the judgment.

Shelby County Supreme Court 09/03/96
Geneva Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products Corporation
01S01-9601-CV-00003
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge John J. Maddux, Jr.

In this retaliatory discharge action, the plaintiff, Geneva Coffey, appeals fromtwo aspects of the Court of Appeals’ judgment: (1) its suggested remittance of the punitive damage award from $500,000 to $150,000; and (2) its disallowance of the $20,000 in “front pay” awarded by the trial court. After a careful consideration of the law and the record in this case, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in both respects. Therefore, we reverse that court’s judgment, and reinstate, in its entirety, the judgment rendered by the trial court.
 

Overton County Supreme Court 09/03/96
Blanche Bilbrey and Cecil Asberry v. Vestel Smithers - Concurring
01S01-9509-CH-00168
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Vernon Neal

This case presents for review the right of a child born out of wedlock to  inherit from his natural father who died prior to the amendment of Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-2-105(a)(2)(B) (Supp. 1995) in 1978. The record supports the finding of paternity, but the claimant failed to establish the right to inherit as required by the statute; however, the appellant is estopped to deny the claimant's asserted interest in the decedent father's real property.

Pickett County Supreme Court 09/03/96
Eli Mike and James A. Schrampfer and Jane N. Forbes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of David L. Osborn v. PO Group, Inc. a Tennessee Corp., James W. (Bill) Anderson III, and the Estate of Harold L. Jenkins - Concurring
01S01-9508-CH-00137
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming an award of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs' suit charging the breach by a  majority shareh older of a fiduciary duty owed to minority shareholders is barred by the o ne year statute of limitations. This Cou rt concludes that the applicable period of limitations is three years and remands the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiffs' action was time-barred.

Davidson County Supreme Court 09/03/96
02A01-9503-CV-00036
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
Carroll County Supreme Court 08/28/96
01S01-9507-CV-103
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 08/26/96