03S01-9412-CR-00119
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9411-CV-00110
|
Supreme Court | ||
03A01-9401-CV-00032
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9502-CV-00016
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9410-CR-00094
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9410-CR-00094
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Adams Valentine
Gregory Adams Valentine was convicted by a jury of unlawful possessoin of a Schedule VI Substance with intent to manufacture, deliever, or sell (a Class E felony) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a Class A misdemeanor). We granted his application for review pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. Crim. P., in order to determine whether his testimony fulfilled the requirements of Rule 41 (g), Tenn.R.Crim.P., thereby preserving his right to challenge, on appeal, the admission of illegally obtain evidence.
|
Henry | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9403-CH-00026
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9502-FD-00024
|
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9407-CR-00044
|
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9407-CR-00044
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9408-CH-00076
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. David Edward Howington
The district attorney general refused to honor an informal immunity agreement1 made with David Edward Howington, the defendant. The reason stated for this refusal was the prosecutor's perception that Howington had not fulfilled his part of the bargain; that is, he had not testified truthfully at his preliminary hearing. He was subsequently tried and convicted of first-degree (felony) murder; he received a life sentence. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
03S01-9407-CR-00069
|
Union | Supreme Court | |
Charlotte v. Broyles
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9502-CV-00021
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9409-CR-00089
|
Supreme Court | ||
Nancy M. Cronin v. John W. Howe, M.D.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Tennessee savings statute1operates to save a medical malpractice action which was initially filed within the three-year statute of repose, but which was voluntarily dismissed and refiled beyond the three-year statute of repose.2 We hold that it does. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. |
Supreme Court | ||
02S01-9406-CH-00027
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9401-CR-00095
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9407-CH-00067
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9502-CR-00011
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9401-CR-00095
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jerrell C. Livingston, State of Tennessee v. Steve Bundy, State of Tennessee v. John R. Tilley, & State of Tennessee v. David Johnson
We accepted the application for review filed pursuant to Rule 11, Tenn. R. App.P. In these four cases in order to determine whether the fresh-complaint doctrine recently modified in State v. Kendricks 1 applies in cases wherein a child is the victim of abuse. For the reasons below appearing, we hold that the fresh-complaint doctrine does not apply in such cases.
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines
This defendant was convicted of murder in the perpetration of armed robbery and sentenced to death. On direct appeal this Court affirmed defendant's conviction and remanded the case for resentencing because of erroneous jury instructions. |
Cheatham | Supreme Court |