State vs. Howard Brown
|
Supreme Court | ||
Ashe vs. Radiation Oncology Assoc., et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
Lamar Fletcher v. State of Tennessee
In this appeal we address two primary issues: (1) whether an indigent party is liable for payment of outstanding litigation taxes levied under Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-4-602 (1998), and (2) whether the Tennessee Department of Correction had authority to withdraw money from an inmate’s trust account to pay a distress warrant. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that indigent parties become liable for litigation taxes when taxed by the court and that the Tennessee Department of Correction has the authority to deduct money from an inmate trust fund to satisfy a distress warrant. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
Edmonds vs. Wilson Co., et al
|
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
Wells vs. TN Board of Regents, et al
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Legg
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Cook
|
Coffee | Supreme Court | |
King vs. Jowers
|
Supreme Court | ||
W1995-00004-SC-R11-PC
|
Hardin | Supreme Court | |
E1997-00044-SC-R11-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
E1997-00044-SC-R11-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
M1997-00040-SC-WCM-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
King vs. Jowers
|
Supreme Court | ||
Heck Van Tran vs. State of TN
|
Supreme Court | ||
02-S-9909-CR-0087
|
Supreme Court | ||
W1997-00034-SC-R11-CV
|
Lake | Supreme Court | |
E1998-00248-SC-WCM-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9812-CV-00137
|
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
W1997-00023-SC-DDT-DD
|
Madison | Supreme Court | |
Momon vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
Momon vs. State
|
Supreme Court | ||
E1998-00176-SC-R11-CV
|
Supreme Court | ||
In State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2D 299 (Tenn. 1991) Bars The Defendant'S Separate
|
Supreme Court | ||
M1997-00020-SC-R11-CD
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee Henry Circuit v. Brenda Anne Burns
Defendant/appellee Brenda Burns was tried and convicted of criminal responsibility for the commission of first-degree murder in the death of her ex-husband, Paul Burns.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview two potential defense witnesses and present the testimony of those witnesses before the jury. The State filed an Application for Permission to Appeal contesting the intermediate court’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction on that basis. The defendant filed a Cross-Application for Permission to Appeal raising, among other issues, whether the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (i.e., first-degree murder), Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-403 (1991), and solicitation to commit a criminal offense (i.e., first-degree murder), Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-102 (1991). We granted both Applications in order to address these important issues. |
Jackson | Supreme Court |