Warren, et. vir vs. Metro Gov't., et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hymel vs. Hymel
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Draper vs. Reaver, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mcpherson vs. Stokes, et. al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cashion vs. Robertson
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Bryant vs. TN. Dept. of Safety
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Theodore Howard
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clemmye Berger vs. Marvin Ratner, et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9601-CR-00019
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9602-CC-00079
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9508-CC-00247
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9512-CC-00405
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Mirack Smith
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9512-CV-00287
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Matthew King
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Terry Logan
|
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Gray
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9610-CH-00265
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Glenn Faulkner
|
Putnam | 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 | |
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 | ||
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 | |
Michael Dean Bush v. State of Tennessee
In this capital case, the defendant, Michael Dean Bush, was convicted of Although not relevant to this appeal, the trial judge imposed a three-year sentence concurrent to the death penalty for the burglary conviction. 2 "Whenever the death penalty is imposed for first degree murder and when the judgment has become final in the trial court, the defendant shall have the right of direct appeal from the trial court to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The affirmance of th e conviction and the sentence of death shall be automatically reviewed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Upon the affirmance by the Court of C rim inal Appeals, th e clerk shall docket the case in the Supreme Court and the case sha ll proceed in accordance with the T ennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.” -2- premeditated first degree murder and first degree burglary.1 In the sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death;” and (2) “[t]he murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5) and (6) (1991). Finding that the two aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution. |
Cumberland | Supreme Court |