Opinions
03A01-9903-JV-00091
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9906-CH-00225
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Anthony Wade
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Dwight Farrar vs. State
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9810-CR-
|
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Heck Van Tran vs. State of TN
|
Supreme Court | ||
02-S-9909-CR-0087
|
Supreme Court | ||
Hon. Frank v. Williams, Iii
|
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9711-CC-00521
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9808-CR-00324
|
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9902-CR-00054
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9904-CR-00161
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9905-CR-00175
|
Meigs | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03A01-9905-CV-00187
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9812-CV-00394
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
W1997-00034-SC-R11-CV
|
Lake | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Bernard J. Henry
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03A01-9812-CV-00423
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9905-CH-00160
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Civil Cases". See Memphis Board of Realtors v. Cohen, 786 S.W.2D 951 (Tenn. App.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9906-CV-00229
|
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
E1998-00248-SC-WCM-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9812-CV-00137
|
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
Johnny D. Young, v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
This is an appeal from the Trial Court’s denial of a Motion for New Trial filed by Plaintiff/Appellant, Johnny D. Young. The motion was based upon allegations of a quotient verdict, improper admission of evidence, and improper argument by counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Although Plaintiff prevailed in his Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action against Defendant, Plaintiff alleged five grounds in a Motion for New Trial, attaching as exhibits affidavits of five jurors, a court officer and Plaintiff’s trial counsel. Defendant responded with contradictory affidavits from four jurors. By entry of a Memorandum and Order, the Trial Court denied four of the grounds for new trial asserted by Plaintiff, and reserved final ruling on the issue of quotient verdict pending testimony by the jurors to resolve the contradictory statements in the affidavits filed by the parties. A hearing was held during which |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals |