Opinion FlashMay 18, 2004
Volume 10 Number 096
Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion.This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version.
Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original document.
Howard H. Vogel
FREEMAN INDUSTRIES LLC v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET Court:TCA Attorneys: John S. Bingham, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Freeman Industries LLC. William T. Gamble, Kingsport, Tennessee, and Thomas Demitrack, Cleveland, Ohio, for the appellee, Eastman Chemical Company. S. Morris Hadden, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellees, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft; Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients, GmbH; Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.; and Nippon Gohsei Industries, Ltd (Michael D. Blechman and Jennifer B. Patterson, New York, New York, of counsel for the appellees, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft and Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients, GmbH; Herbert S. Washer and Jennifer Wendy, New York, New York, of counsel for the appellee, Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.; Eugene Illovsky and Peter Stern, Walnut Creek, California, of counsel for the appellee, Nippon Gohsei Industries, Ltd.). Judge: SUSANO First Paragraph: In this antitrust case, Freeman Industries LLC ("Freeman") sued Eastman Chemical Company ("Eastman") and others for damages, alleging that the defendants engaged in the illegal price-fixing of sorbates, a generic label for several food preservatives. Freeman, who purchased products containing sorbates from entities in New York State, brought suit under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act ("the TTPA") and pursuant to a theory of unjust enrichment. In addition, Freeman sought class certification for all other individuals and entities similarly situated in thirty-five states, including New York, but, significantly, not including the state of Tennessee. Following a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, the trial court granted the motion with respect to the TTPA claim, holding that the TTPA does not apply to indirect purchasers or out-of-state transactions. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court denied Freeman's motion for class certification; and also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Freeman's unjust enrichment claim. Both sides appeal. Because we find that the trial court reached a conclusion that is contrary to the decision of this court in the case of Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp., No. M2000-01850-COA-R9-CV, 2003 WL 21780975 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S., filed July 31, 2003) (Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application pending) - which decision was released after the trial court rendered its decision - we modify the trial court's judgment by deleting that portion of the court's decision holding the TTPA does not apply to indirect purchasers. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgment. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/freemanind.wpd
BEVERLEY MILLER, ET AL. v. UNITED AUTOMAX Court:TCA Attorneys: Kevin A. Snider of Germantown For Appellants, Beverley Miller and Cassandra Meyer Gary C. McCullough of Germantown For Appellee, United Automax Judge: CRAWFORD First Paragraph: Appellants sued Appellee on theories of common law misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, arising from the sale of a used vehicle. A jury returned a verdict for Appellants on both theories and Appellants elected to take their remedy under the common law claim, which included an award of punitive damages. The trial court denied Appellants' prayer for attorney fees, which were not available under the common law remedy but only under the Consumer Protection Act claim. Having been denied attorney fees, Appellants requested that they be allowed to amend their election of remedies. This request was denied. Appellants appeal. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/millerbev.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TERRY R. McCULLOCH Court:TCCA Attorneys: Kent L. Booher, Lenoir City, Tennessee, for the appellant, Terry R. McCulloch. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; John H. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; J. Scott McCluen, District Attorney General; and Frank A. Harvey, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: GLENN First Paragraph: The defendant, Terry R. McCulloch, pled guilty to DUI, third offense, and driving on a revoked license, reserving as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a driver's license roadblock stop. On appeal, he argues that the roadblock stop was unconstitutional. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charges against the defendant. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/mccullochterryr.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CAREY STANFORD RICHMOND Court:TCCA Attorneys: Larry S. Weddington, Bristol, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Carey Stanford Richmond. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michelle R. Chapman, Assistant Attorney General; H. Greeley Wells, Jr., District Attorney General; and Robert H. Montgomery, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WITT First Paragraph: The defendant, Carey Stanford Richmond, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's imposition of incarcerative sentencing for numerous conviction offenses and for an additional probation violation. She claims that she was entitled to alternative sentences, and because we disagree, we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/richmondcareystan.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. REGINALD STACY SUDDERTH Court:TCCA Attorneys: Herbert S. Moncier, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Reginald Stacy Sudderth. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Joseph F. Whalen, Assistant Attorney General; H. Greeley Wells, Jr., District Attorney General; and Joseph E. Perrin and Barry Staubus, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: GLENN First Paragraph: In 1998, the defendant, through former counsel, entered into a letter agreement with the Blount County District Attorney General which provided that he would be granted immunity for the murder of Andre Jackson if he provided information and cooperated in the prosecution of the murder of Gary Huskey and passed a polygraph examination administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") as to the Huskey murder. The defendant subsequently was indicted for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. He then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming, inter alia, that the polygraph was unfair, that he had not failed the test, and that the State breached its agreement to provide another polygraph. Following hearings, the trial court dismissed the motion, and the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the motion, but remand for entry of corrected minutes reflecting that the trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/sudderthreginalds.wpd
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!
SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!
But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi
Home Contact Us PageFinder What's New Help
© Copyright 2004 Tennessee Bar Association