Stones River Utilities, Inc., v. Metropoltian Government of Nashville, Davidison County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
01-A-01-9505-CH-00217
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

This is a contract dispute in which the chancellor found that the uncontradicted proof showed that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the acts alleged in the complaint. We reverse on the single ground of estoppel and remand for further proceedings on that issue alone.

William Barry Martin, v. Marny Anne Martin
01A01-9505-CV-00222
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

In this divorce case, the defendant/wife has appealed from that portion of the divorce decree which granted to the plaintiff/husband sole custody of the daughter of the parties, aged 4 1/2 years at the time of judgment, 5 years at the present time.

Gloria Keene and husband, Edward Keene, v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
01A01-9505-CV-00211
Authoring Judge: Judge Samuel L. Lewis
Trial Court Judge: Judge Barbara N. Haynes

This is an appeal by plaintiffs/appellants, Gloria and Edward Keene, from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to defendant/appellee, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Cracker Barrel").

William Wayne Bray, v. Wanda Lee Jones Bray
01A01-9506-CV-00228
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull

In this case the husband has appealed the trial judge's award of $14,750 to the wife as her share of the marital property. The trial judge made the following findings: that the husband's property had increased in value during the marriage in the amount, when added to the value of some property acquired by the parties, of $34,000; that the cattle acquired by the parties had a negative value of $4,500, leaving a net value of $29,500; that the wife had made a contribution to the preservation and appreciation of the property; that the wife had a greater need than the husband; and that the husband had a greater ability to produce income in the future. Taking the net increase in the marital estate of $29,500 the trial judge then awarded half of it to the wife.

01C01-94l2-CR-004l2
01C01-94l2-CR-004l2
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

03A01-9506-CV-00209
03A01-9506-CV-00209

01S01-9502-FD-00024
01S01-9502-FD-00024

02S01-9407-CR-00044
02S01-9407-CR-00044

02S01-9407-CR-00044
02S01-9407-CR-00044

03C01-9311-CR-00385
03C01-9311-CR-00385

01A01-9505-CH-00189
01A01-9505-CH-00189

Michael Cantrell v. Walker Die Casting
M2001-00693-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
This case involves a denial of medical benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The Appellee was covered under an employee benefit plan which falls within the purview of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellee as to the Appellant's liability for payment of the expenses resulting from the accident. We reverse the decision of the trial court, finding Appellee's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit fatal to his cause.

02A01-9405-CV-00114
02A01-9405-CV-00114

03A01-9507-GS-00217
03A01-9507-GS-00217
Trial Court Judge: Inman

Duncan v. Crawford, Maryville, For The Appellant.
03A01-9507-PB-00230
Trial Court Judge: Inman

03A01-9505-CV-00143
03A01-9505-CV-00143
Trial Court Judge: Inman

In re: Estate of Harold L. Jenkins, Deceased, Hugh C. Carden and Donald Garis, Co-Executors/Appellees, v. Billy R. Parks
01A01-9504-CH-00135
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Tom E. Gray

The claimant, Billy R. Parks, has appealed from a summary judgment of the Probate Court dismissing his claim against the captioned estate. Appellant presents the issues in the following form: 1. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks had no legal basis for making a claim on the theories of implied or quasi contract, or a theory of unjust enrichment of Mr. Jenkins. 2. The Chancellor erred in ruling that Mr. Parks could not recover under an implied or quasi contract theory because of the existence of an express contract between the parties.

Allen D. Heflin and wife Jean LaRue Heflin, as natural parents and next-of-kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v. Stewart County, Tennessee, et al. - Concurring
01A01-9504-CV-00131
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

I concur with the result of the majority's opinion but add this separate opinion to state my understanding of the source and nature of the duty of prison officials to persons who are placed involuntarily in their custody.

Allen D. Heflin and wife, Jean LaRue Heflin, as Natural Parents and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Allen Heflin, Deceased, v., Stewart County, Tennessee, et al.
01A01-9504-CV-00131
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The captioned plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their suit against the defendant, Stewart County, Tennessee, arising out of the suicide of Hugh Allen Heflin in the Stewart County Jail. No complaint is made on appeal as to the summary dismissal of all other defendants. This suit is limited to damages for pain and suffering of deceased. Damages for wrongful death have been recovered in federal court.

William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, Grandparents, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley)
01A01-9503-PB-00121
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
Trial Court Judge: Judge James R. Everett

This appeal arises from post-divorce decree proceedings to increase and enforce child
support. On October 11, 1994, the Trial Court entered an order finding the husband guilty of
willful contempt, awarded the wife judgment for $10,054 arrears child support, increased
weekly payments, awarded attorneys' fees and ordered the husband to be confined in the
workhouse for six months.

William M. Woodside, and Billy E. and Mary Agnita Woodside, v. Susan E. Woodside (Gilley) - Concurring
01A01-9503-PB-00121
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.

In 1987 the United States Supreme Court placed limits on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in federal court. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 107 S. Ct. 2124 (1987). This appeal calls upon us to decide whether similar limitations should be placed on the use of private lawyers to prosecute criminal contempt cases in state court. The majority has declined to adopt the reasoning of the Young decision based on an
unduly narrow view of this court's responsibility. I cannot join the majority’s opinion. Instead, I would find that the resolution of this important question must await another day because the appellant has waived his right to raise the issue by failing to make a timely demand for another prosecutor in the trial court.

Mid-South Bank & Trust Co., V.R. Williams & Co., and Franklin County Bank, v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr., and Paux Max Quandt, III
01A01-9403-CH-00107
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas A. Greer, Jr.

This appeal represents a consolidation of three actions. The first case, styled V.R. Williams & Company v. Paul M. Quandt and Nelle Quandt, is an appeal to Circuit Court from a judgment in the General Sessions Court of Franklin County finding Paul Quandt indebted to V.R. Williams & Co. in the amount of $3664.69 for past due insurance premiums. The second case, styled In Re: Estate of Paul Max Quandt, Deceased, is a probate proceeding filed in the Chancery Court of Franklin County to administer the estate of Paul Max Quandt. The only issues in the probate proceeding heard on consolidation concern creditors' claims filed against Paul Quandt's estate and the exceptions filed thereto. The third case, styled Mid-South Bank & Company, V.R. Williams & Company and Franklin County Bank v. Paul Max Quandt Estate, Nelle S. Quandt, Jessica Quandt, Paul Quandt, Jr. and Paul Max Quandt, III., is a Chancery Court action to set aside fraudulent conveyances of property owned by Paul M. Quandt Defendants/Appellants

Judy Pewitt, v. Lillie Buford, A. Cliff Frensley and Williamson County, Tennessee
01A01-9501-CV-00025
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

This appeal involves a suit primarily based onthe Public Employee Political Freedom Act of 1980, T.C.A. §§ 8-50-601 - 8-50-604 (1993) (hereinafter PEPFA). Plaintiff, Judy Pewitt, appeals from the circuit court's summary judgment order dismissing Pewitt's PEPFA and retaliatory discharge claims against defendants, Lillie Buford, Cliff Frensley, and Williamson County

Charles K. Newsom, v. Textron Aerostructures, a division of Avco, Inc.; and Gary L. Smith, individually
01A01-9504-CH-00151
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a suit brought by an employee against his employer asserting that the employer's actions, in connection with the employee's demotion and subsequent termination, violated The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), T.C.A. § 4-21-101 (1991), et. seq. The employee also alleges that the employer's actions in connection with the demotion and termination were slanderous and constituted outrageous conduct. Plaintiff employee, Charles K. Newsom, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Textron Aerostructures, Inc., and Gary Smith,1 and the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in so doing. The pertinent facts are as follows.

Maxie L. Nichols and W. Max Nichols, v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp.
01A01-9506-CH-00247
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High

This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs' fraud and contract allegations. Appellants are William Max Nichols, maker of certain notes representing student loans, and his father, Maxie L. Nichols, who was co-maker on said notes. The Appellee is Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), a non-profit corporation created by the General Assembly to guarantee and administer loans made by educational institution lenders to students attending post-secondary schools in Tennessee. T.C.A. § 49-4-203(1)- (3) (1990).