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

02S01-9607-CH-00062 02S01-9607-CH-00062		Supreme Court	01/27/97
M1997-00277-SC-OT-CV M1997-00277-SC-OT-CV		Supreme Court	01/21/97
01S01-9603-CV-00049 01S01-9603-CV-00049		Supreme Court	01/13/97
01S01-9511-CH-00211 01S01-9511-CH-00211		Supreme Court	12/23/96
02S01-9604-CV-00044 02S01-9604-CV-00044	Shelby	Supreme Court	12/23/96
02S01-9605-CH-00049 02S01-9605-CH-00049		Supreme Court	12/23/96
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX		Supreme Court	12/23/96
03S01-9507-CH-00077 03S01-9507-CH-00077	Union	Supreme Court	12/23/96
Janice Holder v.Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission and George T. Lewis, III, Esq. in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission 01S01-9610-CH-00211 Authoring Judge: Per Curiam The petition to rehear is denied. ENTER this the 2nd day of December, 1996.	Davidson	Supreme Court	12/02/96
William Wesley Goad v. State of Tennessee 01S01-9509-CR-00169 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson Trial Court Judge: Judge Fred A. Kelly, III The primary issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner, William Wesley Goad, was afforded his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial.	Sumner	Supreme Court	12/02/96
State of Tennessee v. John Michael Denton and William Douglas Brown v. State of Tennessee 01S01-9509-CC-00152 Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr. Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry D. Bell We granted review and consolidated these cases in order to consider the circumstances under which imposition of two convictions resulting from a "single" criminal act may violate the double jeopardy and du process clause of the state and federal constitutions in light of State v. Anthony, 817S.W. 2d299 (Tenn. 1991).	Davidson	Supreme Court	12/02/96
01S01-9507-CV-00102 01S01-9507-CV-00102		Supreme Court	11/25/96
02S01-9509-CC-00085 02S01-9509-CC-00085		Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
03S01-9603-CV-00033 03S01-9603-CV-00033		Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
01S01-9509-CR-00151 01S01-9509-CR-00151 Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman	Davidson	Supreme Court	11/12/96
Leonard L. Rowe v. Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools 03S01-9603-CV-00033 Authoring Judge: Justice Frank M. Drowota, III Trial Court Judge: Chancellor R. Van Owens The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga and Dr. Harry Reynolds, Superintendent of Chattanooga schools, appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that Leonard L. Rowe was deprived of liberty without due process of law by a Board policy which renders any employee previously terminated “for cause, inefficiency, or immorality” ineligible for future employment within the Chattanooga school system. The primary issue for our review is whether adoption of Board policy 4117.5 deprived Rowe of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest to which the requirements of procedural due process apply.1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that due process is not implicated because the Board policy did not deprive Rowe of either a protected property or liberty interest. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.	Knox	Supreme Court	11/04/96
01A01-9606-CH-00259 01A01-9606-CH-00259		Supreme Court	10/31/96
02S01-9509-CH-00084 02S01-9509-CH-00084		Supreme Court	10/28/96
02S01-9512-CV-00122 02S01-9512-CV-00122 Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey	Shelby	Supreme Court	10/28/96
01S01-9508-CH-00140 01S01-9508-CH-00140		Supreme Court	10/28/96
01S01-9610-CH-00211 01S01-9610-CH-00211		Supreme Court	10/23/96
02S01-9507-CH-00056 02S01-9507-CH-00056		Supreme Court	10/14/96