02C01-9412-CR-00294
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9501-CC-00001
|
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9503-CC-00059
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eligibility; (2) Finding a Violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968);
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9503-CR-00087
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9504-CC-00103
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9505-CC-00119
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9505-CR-00120
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01S01-9502-CC-00028
|
Supreme Court | ||
Harold Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry - Concurring
At issue in this appeal by the Board of Dentistry is the validity and constitutionality of a proposed civil penalty against Harold Richardson for practicing dentistry and operating a dental clinic without a license. Also called into question is the authority of the Davidson County Chancery Court to resolve, on judicial review of an administrative order, constitutional issues that were not addressed in the administrative order. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Chancery Court has jurisdiction to consider constitutional issues not addressed in the administrative proceeding. As a result, the Chancery Court's resolution of those issues in the first Chancery Court proceeding from which Richardson did not appeal, bars consideration of those issues. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed, and this matter is remanded to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
02C01-9502-CR-00049
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9504-CC-00102
|
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9505-CR-00145
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth O. Burnett & Vickie S. Burnett v. Frank E. Krisle & d/b/a Elite Electric - Concurring
Kenneth O. Burnett and Vickie S. Burnett ("plaintiffs") filed suit in the Davidson County Circuit Court against Frank E. Krisle, individually and d/b/a Elite Electric ("defendant") seeking damages resulting from a fire caused by defendant's negligence that destroyed plaintiffs' home. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $90,733.56, reduced by a finding that plaintiffs were ten percent (10%) at fault. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal defendant has presented three issues for our consideration: (1) whether there was any material evidence in the record to support the jury verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant a new trial or a remittitur; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to present a witness for testifying after defendant had rested his case. We find no error and affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9507-CR-00192
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9406-CV-00130
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9408-CV-00196
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9409-CH-00219
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9404-CR-00156
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9302-CV-00039
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
01C01-9308-CR-00249
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9412-CR-00427
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9503-CC-00092
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9504-CC-00113
|
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9504-CC-00117
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals |