COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Contour Medical Technology, Inc., v. Flexcon Company, Inc.
01A01-9707-CH-00315
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Don R. Ash

The plaintiff, ContourMedical Technology, Inc., has appealed from a partial summary judgment dismissing that part of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, Flexcon Company, Inc., which seeks consequential damages resulting from defects in material purchased by plaintiff from defendant. The Trial Judge directed entry of final judgment as provided by TRCP Rule 54.02.

Eli Mike, an individual, James A. Schrampfer, an individual, and Jane B. Forbes, as Trustee in bankruptcy for the estate of David L. Osborn, et al. v. Po Group, Inc., et. al.
01A01-9707-CH-00321
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

The captioned plaintiffs’ have appealed from a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ actions against the corporate defendant for the value of their stock as dissenting minority shareholders and their action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty as corporate directors.

Car Connection, Inc. v. Auto Buyers, Inc.
01A01-9707-CV-00301
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This suit was filed in General Sessions Court to collect a dishonored check, but was appealed to the Circuit Court where a complaint was filed stating more details of transactions involving the transfer of ownership of two automobiles, a Honda and a Chevrolet.

Batson East-Land Co, Inc., v Ronnie D. Boyd
01A01-9708-CH-00387
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Alex W. Darnell

Ronnie D. Boyd, the Assessor of Property of Montgomery County, Tennessee, appeals the trial court’s judgment which ruled that eighty-nine percent (89%) of a parcel of real property owned by Petitioner/Appellee Batson East-Land Company, Inc., was entitled to “Greenbelt” status for the tax year 1991. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s ruling and, thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Barbara Ann Hall and David A. Hall, v. St. Thomas Hospital\, Rachel Kaiser, M.D., and Daniel L. Starnes, M.D.
01A01-9709-CV-00504
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This is a medical malpractice suit in which the plaintiffs have appealed from a summary
judgment in favor of all defendants.

Carver Plumbing Company, Inc., v. Martha Cone Beck
01A01-9708-CV-00377
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer

The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause which, after due consideration, is denied.

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.

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.

Jerry Cunningham vs. Baker, et al
02A01-9712-CV-00299

Regan vs. Malone
03A01-9707-CH-00281

McClellan vs. Stanley
03A01-9708-CV-00343

DHS vs. Epps
03A01-9710-JV-00485

Greene vs. Evans
03A01-9710-PH-00487

Miller vs. Hembree
03A01-9712-CV-00537

Foulke vs. City of Greeneville
03A01-9712-CV-00523

Russell vs. Crutchfield
03A01-9708-CV-00329

City of Blaine vs. Hayes
03A01-9711-CH-00520

03A01-9901-CH-00015
03A01-9901-CH-00015

Hoffman vs. Hoffman
03A01-9706-CV-00220

IN RE: Swanay
03A01-9712-PB-00542
Trial Court Judge: Inman

Spencer vs. Hutchison
03A01-9712-CV-00522

Calkins vs. Calkins
03A01-9709-CH-00413

03A01-9708-CV-00377
03A01-9708-CV-00377

Greenman vs. Hutchins
03A01-9709-CV-00404

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.