Please enter some keywords to search.
|
Anderson vs. Moran Foods
02S01-9610-CH-00093
|
Shelby County | Supreme Court | 01/25/99 | |
|
Helms vs. Dept. of Safety
01S01-9709-CH-00185
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Supreme Court | 01/25/99 | ||
|
Sammie Hall v. Shoney's, Inc. & Alexsis, Inc.
01S01-9803-CH-00041
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Tom E. Gray |
Sumner County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/25/99 | |
|
Jordan vs. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital
01S01-9706-CV-00142
|
Supreme Court | 01/25/99 | ||
|
State vs. Parks Bryan
01C01-9711-CC-00521
Originating Judge:Gerald L. Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
State vs. Charjoray P. Weir
M2000-0459-CCA-R3-PC
The Defendant appeals as of right from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief upon its finding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.
Originating Judge:J. O. Bond |
Wilson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
Bell vs. TN Farmers Mutual
01A01-9802-CV-00079
Originating Judge:Charles D. Haston, Sr. |
Warren County | Court of Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
State vs. Calvin Scott
W2002-01324-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Calvin Scott, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Scott to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. In this appeal as of right, Scott raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State asserted sufficient race-neutral explanations to support its exercise of peremptory challenges against four African-American jurors; and (2) whether the trial court, after concluding that the State's exercise of a peremptory challenge was improper, should have dismissed the entire panel rather than reseating the juror. We conclude that the State's use of its peremptory challenges was proper, and the trial court did not err by reseating the challenged juror. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:J. C. Mclin |
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
State vs. Anthony Brasfield
02C01-9808-CC-00257
|
Weakley County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
Terrance Burnett v. State of Tennessee
W2006-01063-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Joseph H. Walker, III |
Lauderdale County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
Hall vs. Hall
01A01-9805-CH-00263
|
Sumner County | Court of Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
In Re: Conservatorship of Edward Leo Gray
01A01-9802-CH-00061
Originating Judge:Carol A. Catalano |
Robertson County | Court of Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
State vs. El Paso Pitts
02C01-9803-CR-00091
|
Shelby County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
State vs. Parks Bryan
01C01-9711-CC-00521
Originating Judge:Gerald L. Ewell, Sr. |
Coffee County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/22/99 | |
|
Hogan et al vs. Coyne International Enterprises Corp.
01A01-9712-CH-00733
|
Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | ||
|
Hawkins vs. Sundquist
01A01-9803-CH-00164
Originating Judge:Carol L. Mccoy |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
State vs. Erik Jackson
01C01-9707-CR-00293
|
Davidson County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Peck vs. Mills et al
01A01-9806-CH-00279
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Williams vs. TDOC
01A01-9801-CH-00010
Originating Judge:Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr. |
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Gross vs. Schoenbeck
01A01-9803-CV-00140
|
Montgomery County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Colwell vs. Traughber
01A01-9806-CH-00292
|
Davidson County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Flightless-N-Bird Farm vs. Dughman
01A01-9803-CV-00126
Originating Judge:Robert E. Burch |
Cheatham County | Court of Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
State vs. Tracy Mullins
01C01-9803-CR-00115
|
Putnam County | Court of Criminal Appeals | 01/21/99 | |
|
Baker vs Maples
03A01-9805-CV-00160
|
Court of Appeals | 01/20/99 | ||
|
Indiana Lumbermen's v. Meade
03S01-9712-CV-00146
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer insists the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive and the employee insists he is permanently and totally disabled. Additionally, the employee contends "the trial court erred in rejecting the testimony of the vocational specialist in its totality." As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on sixty percent to the body as a whole. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-225(e)(2). The extent of an injured worker's disability is an issue of fact. Jaske v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 75 S.W.2d 15 (Tenn. 1988). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review. Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn. 1998). The employee or claimant, Meade, is 58 years old with a third grade education, an intelligence quotient of 74 and experience as a laborer. He suffered a compensable soft tissue injury to his back, which is the subject of this case. The undisputed medical proof is that he has a permanent impairment of five percent to the body as a whole and is permanently restricted from any repeated bending, stooping or squatting, heavy lifting, working over heavy terrain, excessive ladder or stair climbing, strenuous pushing or pulling, or working with his hands above the level of his shoulders. One doctor restricted him from lifting even twenty pounds occasionally. The claimant attempted to return to work but, because of his restrictions, could not perform his duties, and was not working at the time of the trial. He has no other educational, vocational or job training. A vocational expert testified that he had no reasonably transferable job skills from former employment and opined his vocational disability was one hundred percent. The expert qualified his opinion by saying that although the claimant 2
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Special Judge
Originating Judge:Hon. Richard Ladd, |
Knox County | Workers Compensation Panel | 01/20/99 |