Can Do, Inc. Pension and Profit Sharing Plan and Successor Plans, Indiv. and as a Trustee for Georgoe W. Holder, Jr., v, Manier, Herod, Hollabaugh& Smith, C. Kinian Cosner, Jr. and H. Rowan Leathers, III
This case presents a question of first impression in Tennessee: whether or not a legal malpractice claim is assignable. We have determined that soundpublic policy reasons militate against allowing assignment of legal malpractice actions. We, therefore, reverse the Court of Appeals and dismiss the complaint. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Terry E. Wood v. State of Tennessee
We granted the application of Terry E. Wood, the defendant, for permission to appeal in order to resolve an issue of first impression in Tennessee: whether the return of a sealed presentment 1 engages an accursed person's speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 9 , of the Tennessee Constitution. After a thorough examination of the reocrd and careful consideration of the issue, we conclude, for reasons appearing below, that the reutnr of a presentment, whether sealed or unsealed, whether the accompanying capias is executed or unexecuted, is a formal accusation that engages constitutional speedy trial provisions. Thus, we must apply the criteria of Barkery.Wingo 2 and state b. Bishop 3 to determine whether the thirteen-year delay in this case deprived the appellant of this constitutional speedy trial rights. We find that there was no such deprivation and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
|
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9502-CV-00014
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9503-CH-00027
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9503-CH-00045
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9504-CR-00029
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Gene v. Aaby,
|
Supreme Court | ||
Gene v. Aaby,
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9505-CH-00083
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9508-CH-00138
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9504-CV-00047
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9410-CR-00071
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
In Re: Estate of Mary T. Austin, Deceased, Elizabeth T. Austin, v .Christy N. Austin and Robert C. Austin C., Jr.
This case presents for review the decision of the probate court, affimred by the Court of Appeals, that the personal representative in this case may, in his discretion, distribute certain corporate stock in kind rather than sell the stock and distribute the proceeds. The decision miscontrues applicable law and is reversed. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9505-CV-00047
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9505-CH-00060
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9502-CR-00019
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9505-CV-00036
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9303-CC-00052
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9502-CH-00017
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9303-CC-00052
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9502-CV-00015
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9501-CV-00008
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9502-CV-00015
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9411-CR-00138
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9505-CC-00044
|
Supreme Court |