Deroyal vs. Johnson
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Graves vs. Grady's
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Ridley vs. Ridley
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State vs. Danny Anderson
|
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Gregory Simmons
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9611-CC-00473
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9612-CR-00516
|
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9704-CR-00141
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Smith v. Lauren
|
Smith | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State vs. John Thomas
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Myron Garmon
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Roger Kimmel
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Roger Kimmel
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M & M vs. Maples
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03C01-9703-CR-00098
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. John Roe
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Cavious Watkins
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mitchell vs. State
|
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Logan vs. State
|
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
McDonald vs. State
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert J. McCurley, Patricia G. McCurley, v. City of Jackson, Tennessee, Charles Farmer, and J.B.Glassman and wife, Brenda Glassman, and Harold Angus
This is an action in negligence arising out of the June 1993 acts of the appellant, Harold Angus, in demolishing the “Glassman” building, located at 111 North Highland Avenue in Jackson, pursuant to a contract with the city. Angus’ demolition of the building, which had been declared condemned by the city code, is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that, as a result of the building’s demolition, damage was sustained to the building located adjacent thereto, identified as the “Carmen’s” building, and owned by the appellees, Robert J. McCurley and wife, Patricia G. McCurley.1 The two buildings shared a common “party wall.” At issue in this case is whether Angus was negligent in its demolition of the Glassman building so as to be held legally accountable to the McCurleys for the damages they sustained. The case proceeded to a trial by jury where, at the close of all proof, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the appellees on the issue of liability.2 Angus has appealed challenging the correctness of the trial judge’s decision in this regard. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we reverse and remand for a new trial. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Demetra Lyree Parker, v. Warren County Utility District
Plaintiff Demetra Lyree Parker appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant/Appellee W arren County Utility District. We reverse the trial court’s judgment based on our conclusion that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Utility District responded promptly, adequately, and effectively to Parker’s allegations of sexual harassment against the Utility District’s general manager. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Venson Earl Woodard
A Bedford County Circuit Court jury found Appellant Venson Woodard guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. As a Range II multiple offender, he received a sentence of nine years and eight months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a sente nce for which Appellant was on parole at the tim e of the offense. In this appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court violated its duty to act as a thirteenth juror by refusing to grant Appellant’s motion for a new trial. Specifically Appellant maintains the weight of the evidence shows he was acting in self-defense. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Porter Freeman vs. Robert Ring, County Executive, Jerry Sharber, Mayor, et al., - Concurring
The appellant sought to enjoin both city and county officials from the sale of general obligation bonds. The Chancery Court of Franklin granted all defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court erred in not considering the petition for injunction on the merits as against either the city or the county defendants. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Winslow Watson, v. Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Board of Paroles, CCA, and Jody Benjamin
This is an appeal by petitioner/appellant, Winslow Watson, from a decision of the chancery court dismissing his petition for a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-14-101 to -113. The facts out of which this matter arose are as follows. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |