State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Bryant Dewayne Millen
|
Supreme Court | ||
O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085
|
Supreme Court | ||
Holt vs. Lewis
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Parent vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Eyring vs. Fort Sanders Parkwest et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
King vs. State
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works
|
Wayne | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Crutcher
|
Supreme Court | ||
Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Crutcher
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Harris
|
Henry | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring
The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a). |
Henry | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Small
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Madkins
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Tyrone Chalmers
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker
We granted the appeal in this child custody case to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the effects of an interracial relationship on the child and in later excluding the trial court’s comments from the statement of evidence. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly ruled that the prosecution abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in denying the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s written letter denying diversion did not discuss all of the relevant factors, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the prosecutor to testify as to the factors that were considered in denying pretrial diversion. |
Carroll | Supreme Court | |
Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker - Concurring
Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the grant of custody to the father, I write separately to condemn the appearance of impropriety this case exudes. As the United |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Dissenting
I disagree with the majority's holding in this case that the district attorney |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters
We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee
This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Zagorski vs. State of TN
|
Robertson | Supreme Court | |
Hooker vs. Thompson
|
Supreme Court | ||
Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING |
Robertson | Supreme Court |