Lamar Fletcher vs. State
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Jubal Carson
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the defendant, who assisted his co-defendants in committing an aggravated robbery, was criminally responsible under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402(2) for additional offenses committed by them. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Marvin & Ellyse McCarley vs. West Food Quality Service
|
Supreme Court | ||
Marvin & Ellyse McCarley vs. West Food Quality Service
|
Supreme Court | ||
Westand Land West Community Association, et al. v. Knox County, et al.
We granted this appeal to determine whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-105(a) mandates submission of a newly proposed zoning classification amendment to the regional planning commission following the commission's rejection of a similar but different proposed classification. The Court of Appeals held that the statute does not require futile resubmissions of revised proposals. We, however, find that the proposal in question was not merely a revised prior |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9607-CV-00082
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. David Paul Martin
We granted review in this case to determine whether a court-ordered mental evaluation violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. |
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9611-Ch-00101
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Stein vs. Davidson Hotel Company
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Kite vs. Kite
|
Supreme Court | ||
Krick vs. City of Lawrenceburg
|
Lawrence | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Chad Douglas Poole
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Downey
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Chad Douglas Poole
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Bush vs. State
|
Cumberland | Supreme Court | |
Moore vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9610-CV-00106
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Barry L. Speck
|
Supreme Court | ||
Lawson vs. Lear
|
Supreme Court | ||
Terry L. Hicks vs. State
|
Madison | Supreme Court | |
Joe C. Meighan, Jr., for himself and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. Sprint Communications Company
The case is before the Court on a petition for writ of mandamus. This is one of three cases1 in which landowners have filed suit against U.S. Sprint Communications Company (Sprint), asserting claims for inverse condemnation and trespass and seeking certification as a class action. Buhl v. Sprint and the instant case, Meighan, have been before this Court on appeal.2 The relief sought is an order directing the trial court in McCumber v. Sprint to vacate its order certifying a class action and to defer to the trial court in this case on that issue. The Court, heretofore, entered an order staying the proceedings in all three cases pending this hearing. |
Supreme Court |