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

03S01-9410-CR-00094 03S01-9410-CR-00094 Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury		Supreme Court	11/13/95
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Adams Valentine 02S01-9410-CC-00070 Authoring Judge: Justice Aldolpho A. Birch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn Gregory Adams Valentine was convicted by a jury of unlawful possessoin of a Schedule VI Substance with intent to manufacture, deliever, or sell (a Class E felony) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class A misdemeanor). We granted his application for review pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Crim. P., in order to determine whether his testimony fulfilled the requirements of Rule 41 (g), Tenn.R.Crim.P., thereby preserving his right to challenge, on appeal, the admission of illegally obtain evidence.	Henry	Supreme Court	11/06/95
01S01-9403-CH-00026 01S01-9403-CH-00026 Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.	Davidson	Supreme Court	10/30/95
01S01-9502-FD-00024 01S01-9502-FD-00024	Hamilton	Supreme Court	10/23/95
02S01-9407-CR-00044 02S01-9407-CR-00044		Supreme Court	10/23/95
02S01-9407-CR-00044 02S01-9407-CR-00044		Supreme Court	10/23/95
01S01-9408-CH-00076 01S01-9408-CH-00076		Supreme Court	10/16/95
State of Tennessee v. David Edward Howington 01S01-9407-CC-00073 Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Judge John A. Gasaway The district attorney general refused to honor an informal immunity agreement1 made with David Edward Howington, the defendant. The reason stated for this refusal was the prosecutor's perception that Howington had not fulfilled his part of the bargain; that is, he had not testified truthfully at his preliminary hearing. He was subsequently tried and convicted of first-degree (felony) murder; he received a life sentence.	Montgomery	Supreme Court	10/09/95
03S01-9407-CR-00069 03S01-9407-CR-00069	Union	Supreme Court	09/25/95
Charlotte v. Broyles 01S01-9501-CV-00014		Supreme Court	09/25/95
01S01-9502-CV-00021 01S01-9502-CV-00021		Supreme Court	09/25/95
03S01-9409-CR-00089 03S01-9409-CR-00089 Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer		Supreme Court	09/25/95
Nancy M. Cronin v. John W. Howe, M.D. 03S01-9406-CV-00053 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm The issue in this appeal is whether the Tennessee savings statute1operates to save a medical malpractice action which was initially filed within the three-year statute of repose, but which was voluntarily dismissed and refiled beyond the three-year statute of repose.2 We hold that it does. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court.		Supreme Court	09/15/95
02S01-9406-CH-00027 02S01-9406-CH-00027		Supreme Court	09/11/95
03S01-9401-CR-00095 03S01-9401-CR-00095		Supreme Court	09/11/95
03S01-9407-CH-00067 03S01-9407-CH-00067 Trial Court Judge: Earl H. Henley		Supreme Court	09/11/95
03S01-9502-CR-00011 03S01-9502-CR-00011		Supreme Court	09/11/95
03S01-9401-CR-00095 03S01-9401-CR-00095 Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz		Supreme Court	09/11/95
State of Tennessee v. Jerrell C. Livingston, State of Tennessee v. Steve Bundy, State of Tennessee v. John R. Tilley, & State of Tennessee v. David Johnson 01S01-9305-CR-00077 Authoring Judge: Special Justice Charles H. O'Brien Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt We accepted the application for review filed pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. App.P. In these four cases in order to determine whether the fresh-complaint doctrine recently modified in State v. Kendricks 1 applies in cases wherein a child is the victim of abuse. For the reasons below appearing, we hold that the fresh-complaint doctrine does not apply in such cases.	Davidson	Supreme Court	09/06/95
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines 01S01-9303-CC-00052 Authoring Judge: Special Justice Charles H. O'Brien Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch This defendant was convicted of murder in the perpetration of armed robbery and sentenced to death. On direct appeal this Court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the case for resentencing because of erroneous jury instructions.	Cheatham	Supreme Court	09/05/95
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines 01S01-9303-CC-00052 Authoring Judge: Special Justice Charles H. O'Brien Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch This defendant was convicted of murder in the perpetration of armed robbery and sentenced to death. On direct appeal this Court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the case for resentencing because of erroneous jury instructions.1	Cheatham	Supreme Court	09/05/95
Misty Atchley v. Lifecare Center of Cleveland 03S01-9312-CH-00077 Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Earl H. Henley We granted review of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(5)(A), in order to determine, inter alia, whether the provisions contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-241(a)(1) [the multiplier statute], limiting an employee's permanent partial disability award to two and one-half (2½) times the medical impairment rating in cases in which the pre-injury employer returns the employee to employment at awage equal to or greater than the wage the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, apply to injuries involving scheduled members	Bradley	Supreme Court	09/05/95
01S01-9409-CV-00111 01S01-9409-CV-00111 Trial Court Judge: Thomas Goodall		Supreme Court	08/21/95
In Re: Estate of George C. Vincent E2001-03035-SC-R11-CV Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White In this will construction case, we address the question of whether or not the doctrine of exoneration applies to a mortgage on real property passing by right of survivorship where the decedent's will directed that his personal representative pay all his "just debts." We find that the general direction to pay "just debts" is not sufficient to require that the estate pay the remaining balance on the mortgage of non-probate property. Furthermore, additional language in the will regarding the payment of installment debts is not sufficient to indicate that the testator intended to include mortgages of non-probate property where the testator's will specified only one beneficiary and did not mention either the property held by joint tenancy or the joint tenant.	Campbell	Supreme Court	01/22/93
John Doe v. Jane Doe M2003-01142-SC-S25-BP Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker The petitioner, an attorney identified as John Doe, filed a petition for contempt alleging violations by the respondent, an attorney identified as Jane Doe, of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court directed the parties to address as a threshold matter the constitutionality of Rule 9, section 25. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Attorney General and amicus curiae, and analyzing the applicable law, we hold that section 25 of Rule 9 violates free speech protections of Article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further conclude that sanctions for criminal contempt are not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the petition for contempt is denied.	Jackson	Supreme Court