Carl G. Berning v. State of Tennessee, Department of Corrections
The Tennessee Civil Service Commission upheld the termination of a veteran supervisory employee for sexual harassment, conduct unbecoming a state employee, and failure to maintain a satisfactory and harmonious working relationship with fellow employees. The Chancery Court of Davidson County affirmed the Commission’s order. On appeal the employee asserts that he was denied progressive discipline prior to termination, and that he was denied due process of law. On the strength of the proof, he also claims that his conduct does not fit the definition of “conduct unbecoming” or support a conclusion that he failed to maintain a harmonious working relationship, and that his conduct was constitutionally protected. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Scottie Allen Yant v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc.
The manager of an exterminating company brought criminal charges against the owner of a competing company for the alleged theft of a piece of equipment. The general sessions court determined that probable cause existed, but the grand jury declined to indict. The defendant in the criminal case subsequently filed suit for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary judgment to the civil defendant. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Walton Wright v. State of Tennessee
We granted this appeal to determine whether the appellant’s due process rights were violated when the lower courts dismissed his post conviction petition as timebarred by the three-year statute of limitations since the asserted violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), did not arise until after expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Estate of Foster Hume, III, Deceased, The University of the South v. Meredith Klank
We granted this appeal to determine whether the probate rule of ademption by extinction applies to the specific bequest of a house, where the house is sold at foreclosure before the testator’s death and sales proceeds representing the testator’s interest are identifiable after his death. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Barney
The defendant, William Henry Barney, was convicted of eleven counts of rape of a child and seven counts of aggravated sexual battery. He is currently serving a total effective sentence of eighty years. Upon the Court of Criminal Appeals’s affirmance of these judgments, the defendant filed an application for permission to appeal to this Court. We granted the application in order to determine whether the language of the indictment was sufficient under State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997), and to determine whether the multiple convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery violate the constitutional principles of due process or double jeopardy. We conclude that the indictment is sufficient under Hill. In addition, we conclude that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, multiple convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery are justified and do not violate the constitutional principles of due process or double jeopardy. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Robby McCurry v. Container Corp. of America, a Division of Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
The appellee, Robby McCurry, filed a second motion to rehear on December 28, 1998, petitioning this Court to reconsider our decision in the above styled case. The appellee filed this petition without first seeking permission from this Court as prescribed in Rule 39(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, the motion is not well taken. |
Campbell | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristina Schindler
We granted this appeal to address whether a trial court can consider prior grants of diversion or previously expunged offenses in determining a defendant's suitability for diversion. In the case now before us, the trial court denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion because the defendant had previously been placed on diversion on two different occasions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the defendant's application for judicial diversion. Upon review, we hold that evidence of prior diversions may be considered in determining whether a defendant is a suitable candidate for diversion. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Robert James Watkins v. Inman Construction Corp.
|
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State vs. Tiffany Betts
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Christopher Eacholes
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tony Williams
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott vs. Scott
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Simmons vs. Simmons
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Slate vs. Hooper
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Olympia Child vs. City Maryville
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Macklin vs. Macklin
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Donald Stephens
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Ricky Woodard
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Michael Clark
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Huskey
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Lamb
|
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chatt. Regional vs. T.U. Parks Const.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Butler vs. Diversified Energy
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Mildred Verkstrom
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Estate of Mildred Verkstrom
|
Court of Appeals |