Mcpherson vs. Stokes, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bryant vs. TN. Dept. of Safety
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Warren, et. vir vs. Metro Gov't., et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Draper vs. Reaver, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cashion vs. Robertson
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State vs. Mirack Smith
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9610-CH-00265
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9512-CV-00287
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9508-CC-00247
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9601-CR-00019
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9602-CC-00079
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9512-CC-00405
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Glenn Faulkner
|
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Terry Logan
|
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Gray
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Matthew King
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Williams vs Bill Compton, Warden
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on December 17, 1996, and the petitioner’s brief was filed on February 7, 1997. The petitioner was originally indicted for aggravated rape in February 1987, and the petitioner was subsequently convicted of the same. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996), contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea of the offense charged. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Estate of Marion English Truett (Deceased)
Rebecca H. Moore Brown appeals the trial court’s order which awarded Appellee 1In the event of a spouse’s death, the surviving spouse is entitled to the following exempt property from the deceased spouse’s estate: [T]he family Bible and other books, the family automobile, all wearing apparel of the deceased, all household electrical appliances, all household musical and other amusement instruments, and all household and kitchen furniture, appliances, utensils and implements. T.C.A. § 30-2-101(a)(1) (Supp. 1988). 2In the event a spouse dies intestate, the surviving spouse is entitled to [A] reasonable allowance in money out of the estate for such surviving spouse’s maintenance during the period of one (1) year after the death of the spouse, |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Mildred Louise McCollum vs. Kliff Andrew McCollum
This case involves a petition to change child custody1 and modify child support. 2 Wife is employed by the State of Tennessee as a secretary in the District Attorney’s Office and earns a gross monthly salary of $1507.00. Husband is employed by Electric Motor Service and earns a gross monthly salary of $2,456.84. Respondent-appellant, Mildred Louise McCollum (Wife), appeals the trial court’s order reducing the amount of the future child support obligation of petitioner-appellee, Kliff Andrew McCollum (Husband), to reflect the change in the custody of one of the parties’ children. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
William P. Newton v. James S. Cox
Plaintiff William P. Newton appeals the trial court’s order awarding him a $28,125 judgment against his former attorney, Defendant/Appellee James S. Cox, but denying Newton’s claim for prejudgment interest. Newton’s claim arose out of Cox’s retention of a contingency fee in excess of the maximum permitted by statute. We affirm the judgment entered in favor of Newton, but with certain modifications hereinafter set forth. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Maxine O. Mason v. Kenneth M. Seaton and Wife, Laurel Seaton, D/B/A Grand Hotel
This case presents for review the decision of the Court of PPeals, reversing the trial court, that the action of retaliatory discharge "for refusing to remain silent about illegal activities" does not require a showing that the employer expressly or implicitly directed the employee to remain silent about the illegal activitey. This Court affirms the decision and ratoinale of the Court of Appeals. |
Sevier | 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 | ||
Ronald Wayne Hill v. Eagle Bend Manufacturing, Inc. and Transportation Insurance Company
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel |