State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom AKA Otis Smith - Concurring/Dissenting
I fully concur in the majority’s decision affirming the conviction in this case. I also agree with the majority that the trial court’s refusal to admit into evidence as mitigation the testimony of Dr. John Hutson was error which requires a reversal and a remand for re-sentencing. However, I dissent from the majority’s analysis of the constitutionality and sufficiency of the evidence to support the aggravating circumstance, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(5), as amended in 1989. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Ira H. Murphy v. Board of Professional Responsibility
The issue raised by this appeal is whether the petitioner, a disbarred attorney, has satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of his license to practice law contained in Rule 9, § 19.3, Rules of the Supreme Court, by clear and convincing proof. A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility concluded that the petitioner had failed to carry the burden of proof for reinstatement. The Chancery Court, however, reviewed the Hearing Panel decision and held the petitioner was entitled to "conditional reinstatement" of his license to practice law. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Keith Kimbro
We review this cause in order to address an issue of first impression: whether attempt to commit felony-murder exists as an offense in Tennessee. We conclude that it does not and affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing the appellee's conviction.
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Charles M. Cary, Jr. v. Cathy Ann Cary
We granted this appeal to determine whether a provision in an antenuptial agreement by which a prospective spouse waives alimony is void because it violates public policy. The trial court held that such a provision in an antenuptial agreement, which waived alimony, was valid and enforceable and, therefore, denied the spouse’s application for alimony. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, holding that the waiver of alimony provision was void as against public policy, and remanded to the trial court to consider whether to award alimony. |
Hardeman | Supreme Court | |
Michelle Lynn Durham and husband, Robert Wayne Durham, v. Luther Well an wife, Sue Well, individually and D/B/A Webb's British Petroleum Station and W. Paul Arnold, individually and D/B/A Arnold Construction Co.
Michelle Lynn Durham and Robert Wayne Durham (“plaintiffs” or by name)1 brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Gibson, County against Luther Webb and wife Sue Webb, individually and d/b/a Webb’s British Petroleum Station (“defendants”),2 seeking damages for defendant’s alleged negligence that caused plaintiff Michelle Durham to fall in defendant’s parking lot, causing injuries. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, from which this appeal is taken. The sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We find no error and affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Lillian D. Vega-Horta, et al., v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al.
Plaintiff, Lillian Vega-Horta (“plaintiff”), appeals the judgment of the trial court granting defendant’s, St. Mary’s Medical Center (“St. Mary’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment. For reasons state hereinafter, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9512-CH-00562
|
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Vicky v. Klein
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9505-CH-00218
|
Court of Appeals | ||
02A01-9410-CH-00232
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9411-CV-00255
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9412-CV-00269
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9412-CV-00269
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9503-CR-00075
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9508-CC-00228
|
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Joseph Tipler
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The Recent Case of Gene v. Aaby v. Judy Aaby Strange, ____S.W.2D____,
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9512-CV-00448
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9601-CH-00033
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9601-CV-00003
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Ester v. Hayes And
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03C01-9507-CR-00206
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9307-CR-00223
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02S01-9501-CR-00007
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9502-CV-00020
|
Supreme Court |