State vs. David E. Walton, Jr.
|
Crockett | Supreme Court | |
Billy Castleman vs. Ross Engineering, Inc.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Hall vs. TN. Dressed Beef Co., et. al.
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. David Willard Phipps, Jr.
|
Henry | Supreme Court | |
State vs. David Willard Phipps, Jr.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Cunningham vs. Shelton Security Service, et. al
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Henley vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Henley vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Carter vs. State
|
Greene | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Hall
|
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Hall
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Dixon
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Dixon
|
Supreme Court | ||
Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
|
Supreme Court | ||
Kenneth McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing of this appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39. We have considered all of the arguments raised in the petition and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee vs. Glenn Bernard Mann - Concurring
In this capital case, the defendant, Glenn Bernard Mann, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, aggravated rape and aggravated burglary.1 In the sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;” and (2) “[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing burglary.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (7) (1991). Finding that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur, in principle, with Justice Reid’s dissent. I would, however, increase the pool of similar cases to include all cases in which a trial judge’s report is required by Supreme Court |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland
In this capital case, the defendant, Andre S. Bland, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted first degree murder.1 In the sentencing hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance: “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(I)(5) (1991 Repl. & 1996 Supp.). Finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre S. Bland - Concurring/Dissenting
The issues before the Court and sufficiency of the evidence and comparative propottionality of the sentence of death. I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation, that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding of torture (i.e. the "infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains conscious"), and the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances. However, I would find that the sentence of death is disproportionate.
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Tennessee Municipal League vs. Brook Thompson
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Yeargan
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Yeargan
|
Supreme Court | ||
Carl Nelson vs. Harold Eugene Martin & Jack W. Gammon
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Charles A. Pinkham, Jr.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Hutton vs. Johnson
|
Giles | Supreme Court |