COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually; Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually 03A01-9711-CV-00525 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott The plaintiff describes himself as a whistle blower, as that term has come to be used, and seeks damages for his termination from employment because he allegedly refused to participate in and keep silent about certain allegedly illegal corporate activities. The allegations were denied by the defendants whose motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of (1) whether he was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment or whether these reasons were pretextual, (2) whether a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge remains viable in this jurisdiction, and (3) whether his termination constituted outrageous conduct by the defendants. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is denovo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of thecorrectness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). See, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). We will refer to the plaintiff as Hubrig, or as the appellant, or as the plaintiff. This record is unusually prolix; prima facie, it appeared to reflect a trial by affidavit, an impermissible use of RULE 56, see: Womack v. Blue Cross- Blue Shield, 593 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. 1980), but an in-depth analysis reveals that the trial court correctly held that the totality of the evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of fact or law. We therefore affirm the judgment.		Court of Appeals	05/04/98
Ronnie Erwin v. Moon Products M2002-00877-COA-R9-CV Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers Trial Court Judge: J. B. Cox This is an appeal from a denial of an application to compel arbitration. For the following reasons, we affirm the court below.	Marshall	Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Jerry Cunningham vs. Baker, et al 02A01-9712-CV-00299		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Regan vs. Malone 03A01-9707-CH-00281		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
McClellan vs. Stanley 03A01-9708-CV-00343		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
DHS vs. Epps 03A01-9710-JV-00485		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Miller vs. Hembree 03A01-9712-CV-00537		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Foulke vs. City of Greeneville 03A01-9712-CV-00523	Greene	Court of Appeals	04/30/98
03A01-9901-CH-00015 03A01-9901-CH-00015		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Russell vs. Crutchfield 03A01-9708-CV-00329		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
City of Blaine vs. Hayes 03A01-9711-CH-00520		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Greene vs. Evans 03A01-9710-PH-00487		Court of Appeals	04/30/98
Allman vs. Allman M1997-00251-COA-R3-CV Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a provision in the marital dissolution agreement giving the wife an automobile but requiring the husband to continue making the car payments. After the automobile was totally destroyed in a one-vehicle accident, the wife's insurance company paid the balance remaining on the car loan. After the husband refused to pay the wife an amount equal to the balance of the car loan, the wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Sumner County seeking to hold him in contempt. Following a bench trial, the trial judge ordered the husband to pay the wife $7,644.22 representing the balance of the loan when the automobile was destroyed, as well as $1,355 for her legal expenses. We have determined that the marital dissolution agreement allocated the risk of loss of the automobile to the wife and, therefore, reverse the $7,644.22 judgment. We have also determined that the $1,355 judgment must be vacated and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.	Sumner	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Hoffman vs. Hoffman 03A01-9706-CV-00220	Hamilton	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
IN RE: Swanay 03A01-9712-PB-00542 Trial Court Judge: Inman		Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Spencer vs. Hutchison 03A01-9712-CV-00522		Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Greenman vs. Hutchins 03A01-9709-CV-00404		Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Calkins vs. Calkins 03A01-9709-CH-00413	Sevier	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
03A01-9708-CV-00377 03A01-9708-CV-00377		Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Vaughn vs. Vaughn 01A01-9707-CV-00347 Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson	Davidson	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Jimmy H. Vaughn, v. Mary Runyon Vaughn 01A01-9707-CV-00347 Authoring Judge: Senior Judge William H. Inman Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson The trial court found that there had been a change of circumstances and increased Jimmy Hunter Vaughn’s [husband’s] alimony obligation to Mary Runyon Vaughn [wife] from $400.00 per month to $600.00 per month. The court also found that husband should pay $350.00 as reasonable attorney fees to wife’s attorney		Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Hampton vs. TN. Truck Sales, Inc. 01A01-9711-CH-00640 Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy	Davidson	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Vaughn, et. ux. vs. King, et. ux. 01A01-9707-CV-00330 Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III	Rutherford	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Huang vs. Gates vs. Huang 01A01-9709-CV-00462 Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley	Davidson	Court of Appeals	04/29/98
Bickford vs. Bickford 01A01-9711-CH-00645	Rutherford	Court of Appeals	04/29/98