SUPREME COURT OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

Parent vs. State 01S01-9804-BC-00066		Supreme Court	04/19/99
O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085 O2-S-01-9710-CR-00085		Supreme Court	04/19/99
Brewer vs. Lincoln Brass Works 01S01-9609-CV-00196 Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton	Wayne	Supreme Court	04/12/99
State vs. Crutcher 01S01-9804-CR-00081 Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft		Supreme Court	04/12/99
Helms vs. Dept. of Safety 01S01-9709-CH-00185		Supreme Court	04/12/99
State vs. Crutcher 01S01-9804-CR-00081		Supreme Court	04/12/99
State vs. Harris 02S01-9806-CC-00053	Henry	Supreme Court	04/12/99
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Dion Smith Harris - Separate Concurring 02S01-9806-CC-00053 Authoring Judge: Special Justice David B. Hayes Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn The majority concludes that the jury’s finding of an incomplete aggravating circumstance permits Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a), harmless error review, holding the error statutory rather than constitutional. I agree that the error is statutory and that harmless error analysis applies. Accordingly, I join with the majority in affirming the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I write separately, however, because I find that, in conducting harmless error review, the majority fails to perform a sufficient analysis to support its finding that the invalid aggravating circumstance did not “affirmatively appear to have affected the result of the trial on the merits.” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a).	Henry	Supreme Court	04/12/99
State vs. Small 03S01-9804-CR-00038	Knox	Supreme Court	04/12/99
King vs. State 03S01-9801-CR-00001	Knox	Supreme Court	04/12/99
State vs. Madkins 02S01-9805-CR-00046 Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley		Supreme Court	03/22/99
State vs. Tyrone Chalmers 02C01-9711-CC-00449 Trial Court Judge: Gary R. Wade	Shelby	Supreme Court	03/15/99
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry 02S01-9709-CC-00079 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly ruled that the prosecution abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in denying the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s written letter denying diversion did not discuss all of the relevant factors, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the prosecutor to testify as to the factors that were considered in denying pretrial diversion.	Carroll	Supreme Court	03/08/99
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Dissenting 02S01-9709-CC-00079 Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder I disagree with the majority's holding in this case that the district attorney general abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. The defendant has committed an extremely serious offense in this case. She has admitted to embezzling approximately $27,400.00 from her employer. Her crime was not an isolated incident but a complicated, calculated, and deliberate criminal scheme that occurred repeatedly over a course of two years until she was ultimately caught.	Jackson	Supreme Court	03/08/99
Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker 01S01-9704-CH-00085 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace We granted the appeal in this child custody case to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the effects of an interracial relationship on the child and in later excluding the trial court’s comments from the statement of evidence.		Supreme Court	03/08/99
Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker - Concurring 01S01-9704-CH-00085 Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the grant of custody to the father, I write separately to condemn the appearance of impropriety this case exudes. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Offutt v. U.S., 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13, 99 L. Ed. 11, 16 (1954), “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” The trial court’s actions in this case do not satisfy that appearance.	Davidson	Supreme Court	03/08/99
Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee 01S01-9804-BC-00076 Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed.	Davidson	Supreme Court	03/01/99
Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters 03S01-9809-CV-00101 Authoring Judge: Justice Frank W. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Judge Wheeler Rosenbalm We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6).	Knox	Supreme Court	03/01/99
Zagorski vs. State of TN 01S01-9711-CC-00240	Robertson	Supreme Court	02/28/99
Hooker vs. Thompson 01A01-9709-CH-00533		Supreme Court	02/16/99
State of Tennessee v. Preston Carter - Concurring 02S01-9705-CR-00045 Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood In this capital case, the defendant, Preston Carter, pled guilty and was convicted on two counts of felony murder. A jury sentenced him to death on both counts, finding that the murders of Thomas and Tensia Jackson were especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(5). The jury imposed sentences of death based upon the presence of this sole aggravating circumstance.	Shelby	Supreme Court	02/01/99
Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee 01S01-9711-CC-00240 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING Appellant Edmund George Zagorski has filed a petition to rehear this cause pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39 contending that our opinion conflicts with and/or overlooks principles of law regarding trial counsel’s duties to investigate mitigation evidence and fully advise a defendant regarding a potential mitigation defense. We have reviewed all of the arguments raised in the petition, and we find them to be without merit.	Robertson	Supreme Court	02/01/99
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Robert Stevens, Laurie Ann Williams, and James Darren Brothers Stevens, et al. 02S01-9712-CC-00112 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn We granted this appeal to determine whether a conclusory allegation in an affidavit that information was provided by a “concerned citizen source” is sufficient to establish the presumptive reliability of the information for the issuance of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.1 There is a distinction in Tennessee law between “citizen informants” and “criminal informants” or those from the criminal milieu. Information provided by an unnamed ordinary citizen is presumed to be reliable, and the affidavit need not establish that the source is credible or that the information is reliable. State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 354 (Tenn. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. 2d 983 (1983). On the other hand, where information is provided by an anonymous criminal informant, the affidavit must establish (1) the basis of the informant’s knowledge, and (2) the reliability of the informant or the information. State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989).	Henry	Supreme Court	02/01/99
Charles Walton Wright v. State of Tennessee 01S01-9709-CR-00196 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz We granted this appeal to determine whether the appellant’s due process rights were violated when the lower courts dismissed his post conviction petition as timebarred by the three-year statute of limitations since the asserted violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), did not arise until after expiration of the three-year statute of limitations.	Davidson	Supreme Court	02/01/99
Estate of Foster Hume, III, Deceased, The University of the South v. Meredith Klank 01S01-9709-PB-00182 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. We granted this appeal to determine whether the probate rule of ademption by extinction applies to the specific bequest of a house, where the house is sold at foreclosure before the testator’s death and sales proceeds representing the testator’s interest are identifiable after his death.		Supreme Court	02/01/99