Hampton vs. TN. Truck Sales, Inc.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pritchett vs. Pritchett
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Swoffard vs. Del Pino-McClarty
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jarrett vs. Starkey
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Branum vs. Akins
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
JoAnn Duckett vs. Fox Fire Apt., et al
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Barry Sawyer vs. First TN Bank, et al
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Ali vs. Moore
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Sprayberry-Gravitt vs. Baker
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Lazenby vs. Lazenby
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Stones River Utilities vs. Metro Gov't
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wright, et. al. vs. C & S Family Credit
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wright, et. al. vs. C & S Family Credit
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Norris vs. Windrow
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9709-CV-00479
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Compton vs. Campbell, Commissioner
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teaster vs. Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy O'Shea vs. Vet/Betty Conder
|
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
Pardue, Jr. vs. Metro Gov't
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Erwin, et. ux. vs. Lovell, et. al.
|
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Holt vs. Lewis
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Moser vs. Dept. of Transp., et. al .
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Quarles vs. Shoemaker
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Friar vs. Kroger
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Cobb v. Joseph Vinson, et al.
Stephen Cobb (“petitioner”) filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of Lake County against Joseph Vinson, Chairman of the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility disciplinary board (“LCRCF”); Billy Compton, warden of LCRCF; and Donal Campbell (“commissioner”), commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (collectively “respondents”) seeking court review of actions taken by the prison disciplinary board, prison warden, and department commissioner. Due process violations resulting therefrom were also alleged. The trial court granted respondents’ motion for dismissal for improper venue and petitioner has appealed. On appeal, a single issue was presented for our review: whether the trial court erred in granting respondents’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. For reasons state hereinafter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand. |
Lake | Court of Appeals |