Supreme Court Opinions

Format: 04/30/2016
Format: 04/30/2016
02S01-9512-CH-00131
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Supreme Court 09/16/96
02S01-9509-CV-00083
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
02S01-9511-CC-00121
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
01S01-9510-CV-00185
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
01S01-9511-CC-00219
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 09/16/96
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