SUPREME COURT OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
03S01-9603-CV-00033 03S01-9603-CV-00033		Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
02S01-9509-CC-00085 02S01-9509-CC-00085		Supreme Court	11/12/96
Leonard L. Rowe v. Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools 03S01-9603-CV-00033 Authoring Judge: Justice Frank M. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Chancellor R. Van Owens The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Chattanooga schools, appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that Leonard L. Rowe was deprived of liberty without due process of law by a Board policy which renders any employee previously terminated “for cause, inefficiency, or immorality” ineligible for future employment within the Chattanooga school system. The primary issue for our review is whether adoption of Board policy 4117.5 deprived Rowe of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest to which the requirements of procedural due process apply.1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that due process is not implicated because the Board policy did not deprive Rowe of either a protected property or liberty interest. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.	Knox	Supreme Court	11/04/96
01A01-9606-CH-00259 01A01-9606-CH-00259		Supreme Court	10/31/96
01S01-9508-CH-00140 01S01-9508-CH-00140		Supreme Court	10/28/96
02S01-9509-CH-00084 02S01-9509-CH-00084		Supreme Court	10/28/96
02S01-9512-CV-00122 02S01-9512-CV-00122 Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey	Shelby	Supreme Court	10/28/96
01S01-9610-CH-00211 01S01-9610-CH-00211		Supreme Court	10/23/96
01S01-9509-CR-00170 01S01-9509-CR-00170 Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz		Supreme Court	10/14/96
02S01-9507-CH-00056 02S01-9507-CH-00056		Supreme Court	10/14/96
Ethel Faye George v. Clyde Wayne Alexanderand Phillip R. Jones, M.D. 01S01-9505-CV-00084 Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff, Ethel Faye George, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Clyde Wayne Alexander, M.D. and Phillip R. Jones, M.D. This case presents the following issue for our determination: whether a defendant in a negligence case must, pursuant to Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, plead comparative fault as an affirmative defense if the defendant wishes to introduce evidence that a person other than itself caused the plaintiff’s injury. We conclude that the defendant is required to affirmatively plead comparative fault in such a situation; and because that was not done in this case, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.	Davidson	Supreme Court	10/07/96
Ethel Faye George v. Clyde Wayne Alexander, M.D. and Phillip R. Jones, M.D. - Concurring 01S01-9505-CV-00084 Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley I agree with the result reached by the majoirity however, resolution of the important principles of comparative fault and rules of pleading and evidence presented in this case requires, in my view, a more precise articulation and analysis of the pleadings, the facts, and the legal issues. As an example, the statement of the issue decided in themajority's introductory paragraph - if the defendant wishes to introduce evidence that a person other than itself caused the plaintiff's injury - encompasses various situations controlled by different rules and cannot be decided as stated. Since the ruls of substantive law. pleading and evidence are correlated, I can best state my views in an integrated opinion rather than in a commentary on the majority's opinion.	Davidson	Supreme Court	10/07/96
Mitchell Brian Ramsey v. James G. Beavers 03S01-9509-CV-00104 Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White Trial Court Judge: Judge Samuel H. Payne In this case we are faced with the issue of the continued viability of the zone of danger test as a limitation on liability when plaintiff is neither physically injured nor in an area where physical injury is possible. We conclude that in cases such as this, in which plaintiff sensorily observes the injury and resulting death of his mother, recovery should be allowed under circumstances in which the incident which produces the emotional injuries and the emotional injuries are reasonably foreseeable.	Hamilton	Supreme Court	10/07/96
Walter P. Vogel v. Wells Fargo Guard Svcs. & Dina Tobin, Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor Second Injury Fund, State of Tennessee and Charles Burson, Atty General, State of Tennessee 03S01-9601-CV-00005 Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Turnbull In this workers' compensation case, we are asked to review the trial court’s determination that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6- 207(4)(A)(i) is unconstitutional and that plaintiff is entitled to life-time workers’ compensation benefits. Having considered the positions of the parties, the plain language and the legislative intent of the statute, and relevant authority in other jurisdictions, we reverse.	Knox	Supreme Court	10/07/96
Sherry Wimley v. Linda Rudolph, Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Human Services - Concurring 01S01-9507-CH-00108 Authoring Judge: Justice Penny J. White Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Allen High The issue in this case is whether plaintiff can combine an original action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a petition for judicial review under the Uniform Administration Procedures Act when the sole relief requested under the Section 1983 claim is an award of attorney fees. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision allowing plaintiff an award of attorney fees.	Davidson	Supreme Court	10/07/96
State of Tennessee, Ex. Rel., v. Brook Thompson, Riley Darnell, Charles Burson, Don Sundquist, and Penny White 01S01-9605-CH-00106 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice William H. D. Fones Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz These consolidated cases arise from the efforts of appellants, Lewis Laska and John Jay Hooker, to have their names placed on the ballot for the August 1, 1996, statewide election to the office of Supreme Court Justice. The deadline for filing nominating petitions for this election was 12:00 noon on May 16, 1996, in accordance with T.C.A. § 2-5-101.	Davidson	Supreme Court	10/02/96
01S01-9506-CH-00098 01S01-9506-CH-00098 Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray	Sumner	Supreme Court	09/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Supreme Court	09/20/96
01S01-9507-CR-00110 01S01-9507-CR-00110		Supreme Court	09/16/96
01S01-9507-CR-00110 01S01-9507-CR-00110		Supreme Court	09/16/96
01S01-9509-CV-00150 01S01-9509-CV-00150		Supreme Court	09/16/96