Brenda Sneed vs. Thomas Stovall
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Carlos Well vs. Hammet & Sons
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Katherine Jarred vs. Kistie Hendrix
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Bank/Trust vs. Paragon Paint
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
David Gross vs. Sheriff A.C. Gilless
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lezley Johnson vs. Kenneth Downing
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lorenzo Childress vs. Union Realty
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Perkins vs. Dept. of Employment Security & Sports Belle, Inc.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Matlock D/B/A MSM Development vs. Lenoir City Board of Zoning
|
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Janet Scarbrough vs. Edd Scarbrough
|
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9903-CH-00120
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Continental Land Co. vs. Investment Properties Co.
|
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Slate vs. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Davis vs. Dept. of Employment Security
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
White (Deerman) vs. White
|
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Moore vs. Moore
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
15th Jud. Dist. Unified Bar Assoc. vs. Glasgow
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Davis vs. Dept. of Employment Security
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kim Nuchols (Walker) vs. Benny Nuchols
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9902-CH-00045
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Westside Health and Raquet Club, Inc., v. Jefferson Financial Services, Inc.
Westside Health & Racquet Club, Inc. (“Westside”) filed this action against Jefferson Financial Services, Inc. (“ Jefferson”). Westside’s theory of its claim -- which theory was adopted by the trial court -- is that Westside’s transfer to Jefferson, over time, of some 495 installment sales |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, et al., Coretta Scott King, v. Lloyd Jowers
On December 1, 1999, the State of Tennessee on behalf of the appellants Judge James Beasley, Judge Robert T. Dwyer and Mark Glankler, filed a Rule 10 T.R.A.P. application for Page 1 extraordinary appeal. Specifically, the State sought to set aside the trial court’s order denying the State’s motion to quash the subpoenas served on the aforementioned appellants. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Randy Hill, v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
This appeal involves a state prisoner’s efforts to be paroled from an eight-year sentence for aggravated child abuse. After the Tennessee Board of Paroles declined to parole him, the prisoner filed a certiorari petition in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking judicial review of the Board’s decision. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was not timely filed. We affirm the trial court in accordance with Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b).1 |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Compton v. Tennessee Department of Correction and Nashville Community Service Center
This appeal involves a state prisoner’s efforts to obtain judicial review of a disciplinary action taken by the Nashville Community Service Center. After the Commissioner of Correction upheld the finding that he been drinking while on work release, the prisoner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The trial court clerk refused to file the petition and required the prisoner to file a second petition because the pauper’s oath accompanying the first petition was not on the proper form and had not been notarized. Thereafter, the trial court granted the Department of Correction’s motion to dismiss the second petition because it was not timely filed. We have determined that the trial court clerk exceeded his authority when he declined to accept and file the prisoner’ petition and, therefore, that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Bean, Franklin Shaffer, David Autrey, Mack Roberts, Kevin Antle, Tom NIchols, Tammie P. Beasley, and Roxanne Luce, v. Ned Ray McWherter, Governor, State of Tennessee et al.
This is a constitutional challenge to an Act of the legislature regulating the possession and sale of animals. Owners, dealers, and licensed propagators of various wildlife species challenged the Act on grounds that it is vague, overbroad, and a burden on interstate commerce. The Chancery Court of Davidson County rejected the constitutional challenge. We affirm the decision on the vagueness and overbreadth charge. We think, however, that there are disputed facts bearing on the question of whether parts of the Act impermissibly burden interstate commerce. We, therefore, remand for further proceedings on that issue. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |