01S01-9511-CH-00208
|
Bedford | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9511-CH-00208
|
Bedford | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9511-CH-00208
|
Bedford | Supreme Court | |
M1997-00277-SC-OT-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9603-CV-00049
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9507-CH-00077
|
Union | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9605-CH-00049
|
Supreme Court | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9604-CV-00044
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9511-CH-00211
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. John Michael Denton and William Douglas Brown v. State of Tennessee
We granted review and consolidated these cases in order to consider the circumstances under which imposition of two convictions resulting from a "single" criminal act may violate the double jeopardy and du process clause of the state and federal constitutions in light of State v. Anthony, 817S.W. 2d299 (Tenn. 1991).
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
William Wesley Goad v. State of Tennessee
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner, William Wesley Goad, was afforded his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
Janice Holder v.Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission and George T. Lewis, III, Esq. in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission
The petition to rehear is denied. ENTER this the 2nd day of December, 1996. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9507-CV-00102
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9603-CV-00033
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9509-CC-00085
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Leonard L. Rowe v. Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools
The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Chattanooga schools, appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that Leonard L. Rowe was deprived of liberty without due process of law by a Board policy which renders any employee previously terminated “for cause, inefficiency, or immorality” ineligible for future employment within the Chattanooga school system. The primary issue for our review is whether adoption of Board policy 4117.5 deprived Rowe of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest to which the requirements of procedural due process apply.1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that due process is not implicated because the Board policy did not deprive Rowe of either a protected property or liberty interest. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
01A01-9606-CH-00259
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9508-CH-00140
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9509-CH-00084
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9512-CV-00122
|
Shelby | Supreme Court |