COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

Ringling vs. TN. Bd. of Paroles
01A01-9708-CV-00416
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers

Nilsen vs. Black
01A01-9705-CH-00212
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

Mitchell vs. Reno
01A01-9605-CV-00226
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

Michael Sanderson v. University of Tennessee - Concurring
01A01-9607-CH-00289
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert S. Brandt

In this case, a student at the University of Tennessee was charged with plagiarism. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that the  student had not committed plagiarism. The University Chancellor reversed the ALJ’s decision, issuing a final order finding the student guilty of plagiarism. The student appealed this decision to the chancery court, pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, which affirmed the finding of plagiarism. We affirm the decision of the chancery court.

Alexander Friedmann, v. Charles Bass, et al.
01A01-9707-CH-00331
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This appeal involves a prison disciplinary proceeding. After being found guilty of engaging in an unauthorized monetary transaction, the prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County alleging that the disciplinary proceeding violated his due process rights. The trial court granted the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out a due process claim as a matter of law. We affirm the summary judgment in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1

Friedmann vs. Bass
01A01-9707-CH-00331
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Zanetis vs. McMackin
01A01-9705-CV-00203
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Zanetis vs. McMackin
01A01-9705-CV-00203
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

In re: Jeffrey Morgan
02A01-9608-CH-00206
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos

Walter Biddle vs. Norfolk Southern Corp. et al
02A01-9605-CV-00122
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

City of Athens vs. Callaway
03A01-9707-CV-00256

Charles Fossett vs. State of TN
02A01-9703-BC-00061

03A01-9704-CH-00133
03A01-9704-CH-00133

Pratt vs. Smart
03A01-9701-CV-00024

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co.
M2002-01752-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
On November 16, 1997, a fire destroyed a Chili's Restaurant ("Chili's") in Nashville, Tennessee. At the time of the fire, the premises were owned and operated by RMR Investments and Gower Center, Ltd. ("RMR/Gower") and leased to Chili's. Under a 20-year lease agreement, Chili's agreed to insure the improvements against loss or damage by fire and other casualties and to insure against property damage and public liability arising out of occurrences on the premises. RMR/Gower was to be named as a loss payee or additional insured under the insurance policies obtained by Chili's. According to the lease, in the event the premises and/or the improvements were destroyed by fire or other casualty, Chili's had the option to terminate the lease, and all insurance proceeds were to be paid to RMR/Gower, except for the portion payable to Chili's for loss of personal property. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Chili's obtained insurance coverage through Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington"). The certificate of insurance dated December 5, 1997 listed RMR/Gower as certificate holder and named RMR/Gower as additional insured. After the fire, Chili's elected to terminate the lease agreement due to the condition of the premises. Lexington paid the proceeds for the loss of the building to RMR/Gower, less amounts paid to Chili's for loss of personal property. RMR/Gower submitted an additional claim for damages it incurred for the loss of rental income and other charges it would have otherwise collected from Chili's. This claim was denied by Lexington. RMR/Gower then submitted a claim to its insurer Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company ("Charter Oak") for the loss of rental income, which Charter Oak paid. After Lexington refused to reimburse Charter Oak for the amounts it paid RMR/Gower for the loss of rental income, Charter Oak filed suit against Lexington for breach of contract under the theory of third party beneficiary. Parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On June 26, 2002, the trial court granted Lexington's summary judgment motion and denied Charter Oak's motion. Notice of this appeal soon followed. For the reasons set forth below, the order of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: Alex W. Darnell

American Color vs. Innovo
01A01-9703-CH-00120
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Jones vs. Rudolph
01A01-9611-CH-00513
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy

Thomas v. White
01A01-9610-CH-00479
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

Wolf vs. The University of TN.
01A01-9611-CH-00514
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137

Nelson vs. The Application Group
01A01-9703-CV-00137
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

Fetterolf vs. Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Trial Court Judge: John P. Hudson

State of Tennessee Department of Human Services, v. Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, and Stanley Fetterolf
01A01-9704-JV-00171
Authoring Judge: Judge Walter W. Bussart
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Hudson

This is an appeal by respondents/appellants, Stanley Fetterolf and Sylvia Fetterolf Ford, from a decision of the Putnam County Juvenile Court terminating their parental rights. Ms. Ford argues petitioner/appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Human Services (“Department”), filed its petition for termination of parental rights in the wrong court and contends the proper venue was the Overton County Juvenile Court which had handled the initial custody proceedings.1 The pertinent facts are as follows.

Kitsie Hendrix vs. James Cox, et al
02A01-9510-CV-00233
Trial Court Judge: Wyeth Chandler