State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey
We granted interlocutory review in this death penalty case to |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Martin
A jury convicted the defendant, Henry Lee Martin, of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. We granted review to determine whether Tenn. R. Evid., Rule 613(b) mandates that a foundation be laid prior to the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We hold that extrinsic evidence remains inadmissible until: (1) the witness is asked whether the witness made the prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the witness denies or equivocates as to having made the prior inconsistent statement. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Page G. Stuart v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Safety
During a wide-ranging investigation, law enforcement officers located and seized several items of property thought to be used in the conduct of an illegal drug enterprise. Criminal charges followed the several seizures, and Page Stuart, the appellant, pleaded guilty to offenses involving delivery and conspiracy to deliver large quantities of marijuana. The State thereafter instituted administrative proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 53-11-201 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1992) for the forfeiture of the property seized. Although Stuart challenged the forfeiture of some of the property,1 he was not successful, and both the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture. We granted Stuart’s application for review under Rule 11 |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Sandra Sanders v. David W. Lanier and State of Tennessee - Concurring
The issue with which we are confronted is whether the State may be liable to a county employee for employment discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA") when the county employee is under the supervision of a state judge who commits quid pro quo sexual harassment against the county employee. The trial court answered the question in the negative holding that the State was not the plaintiff's employer under the THRA. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the THRA imposed liability on the State under an economic realities test. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm as modified the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's judgment. |
Dyer | Supreme Court | |
Geneva Grahl vs. Lillie Davis, Et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Hoxie
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Grapel Simpson
|
McNairy | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Irwin
|
Blount | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Vineyard
|
Supreme Court | ||
Samuelson vs. Totty
|
Supreme Court | ||
Franklin Jones vs. Sterling Last Corp.
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Glenn Bernard Mann
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9705-CV-00100
|
Supreme Court | ||
Henley vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Marvin McCarley and Ellyse McCarley v. West Food Quality Service d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken
The plaintiffs, Marvin and Ellyse McCarley, appeal the summary dismissal of their complaint alleging that Mr. McCarley received food poisoning after ingesting food improperly prepared by the defendant, Kentucky Fried Chicken. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that the plaintiffs' proof was insufficient to establish the element of causation. We granted appeal to address: (1) the Court of Appeals' analysis in summary judgment dispositions; and (2) the quantum and type of proof plaintiffs must proffer to survive summary dismissal in negligent food poisoning cases. Upon review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 |
Supreme Court | ||
Stateof Tennessee v. Michael Joe Boyd
I dissent from the majority's holding that the jury's consideration of the invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless error. Thos not every imperfection in the deliberative process is sufficient, even in a capital case, to set aside a ... judgement, the severity of the sentence mandates careful scrutiny in the review of any colorable claim of error.
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Michael Joe Boyd
The issue in this post-conviction death penalty appeal is whether the jury’s reliance on an invalid aggravating circumstance was harmless error, or whether resentencing is required because there is reasonable doubt that the sentence would have been the same had the jury given no weight to the invalid aggravating factor. The jury relied on a valid aggravating factor, that the defendant had a prior conviction for a violent felony offense (second-degree murder), and an invalid aggravating circumstance, that the victim was killed during the commission of a felony.1 |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Ray Anthony Bridges
|
Supreme Court | ||
Hawks vs. City of Westmoreland
|
Supreme Court | ||
Turner vs. Jordan, M.D.
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9611-CR-00227
|
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Winningham
|
Pickett | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. William F. Carico
The application for permission to appeal from the convicition of aggravated rape and a Range I sentence of 25 years was granted in part, to consider two of the several issues decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and the sentence. In those isues, the appellant insists that the delay in initiating the prosecution was a violation of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process and that the sentence imnposed is excellive. The conviction and the sentence are affirmed. |
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Vineyard
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Cleveland
|
Supreme Court |
