State of Tennessee v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr.
We accepted the State’s application for review in this cause in order to determine the validity of an indictment which charged aggravated rape.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals held the indictment void and the subsequent conviction invalid because the language of the indictment failed to allege a culpable mental state. |
Wayne | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Wayne Stokes
Larry Wayne Stokes, the appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Williamson County of rape of a child, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-522 (Supp. 1995). He currently serves a fifteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
Kelly Carter vs. United Parcel Service et. al.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Bean vs. McWherter
|
Supreme Court | ||
Linda & Wilburn Grantham vs. Jackson-Madison Co General Hospital
|
Madison | Supreme Court | |
William Warren vs. Estate of Jerry N. Kirk,Deceased
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Sheline
|
Supreme Court | ||
Stanbury vs. Bacardi
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Carter vs. State
|
Greene | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Murphy
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Betty D. Levandowski
In this appeal,1 we must determine whether a false response from an individual to an inquiry made by a law enforcement officer constitutes a false report within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-502(a)(1) (1991). After careful review, we hold that § 39-16-502(a)(1) applies to statements volunteered or initiated by an individual but does not apply to statements made in response to inquiries by law enforcement officers. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Merlin Eugene Shuck
The defendant, Merlin Eugene Shuck, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit especially aggravated kidnaping. The defense theory at trial was entrapment, and in support of that defense, Shuck sought to introduce expert testimony from a neuropsychologist that he had suffered a cognitive decline and significant |
Cocke | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Dubose
|
Supreme Court | ||
William D. Carroll vs. Fred Raney, Warden
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Dubose
|
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
McDaniel vs. CSX Transportation, Inc.
|
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Gordon
|
Supreme Court | ||
Robinson vs. Omer, Sr.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Robert Bean, Franklin Shaffer, David Autrey, et al., v. Ned Ray McWherter in his capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee, et al., - Concurring
This appeal addresses the General Assembly's power to delegate rulemaking authority to administrative agencies. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly could not constitutionally delegate power to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission ("TWRC") to add or delete animals from the dangerous species list. We reverse and hold that the legislature may delegate power to add and delete items from a statutory schedule absent explicit guidance standards. The legislature, however, must provide a basic standard accompanied by a general policy when delegating in areas concerning public health, safety, and general welfare. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Arnold Carter v. State of Tennessee
We granted the State's application in this case to determine whether the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 (“the new Act”), provides to petitioners for whom the statute of limitations had expired under the old Act additional time in which to file petitions for post-conviction relief. We conclude that although the language of the new Act is ambiguous, the legislative intent is clear: petitioners for whom the statute of limitations expired prior to the effective date of the new Act, i.e., May 10, 1995, do not have an additional year in which to file petitions for post-conviction relief. Thus, the petition filed by Arnold Carter is barred by the statute of limitations. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the petition is dismissed. |
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jefferson C. Pennington
We review this cause to determine whether detention immediately after arrest, purposely continued because of the accused’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, constitutes punishment that prevents, under double jeopardy principles, punishment upon conviction. Because we find that jeopardy did not attach to the proceedings before the judicial commissioner and because the detention, even if punitive, did not constitute punishment for the charged offenses, we find no double jeopardy violation. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, the indictments are reinstated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Supreme Court | ||
Vernon Ray Davis v. Jim Reagan and Howard Sexton, D/B/A Precision Construction Traveler's Insurance Co.
We granted this consolidated appeal to determine whether permanent total disability can be awarded when an anatomical disability rating is less than 16.7 percent. In Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc., 906 S.W.2d 444 (Tenn. 1995), this Court adopted a panel decision holding that the limits in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 (1996 Supp.) precluded an award of total disability when the anatomical impairment was less than 16.7 percent. A later, but unpublished, workers' compensation panel decision held that the limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) are not applicable to permanent total disability claims. Warren v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 03S01-9506-CV-00061 (Nov. 29, 1995, at Knoxville). We granted review to reconcile these two cases and decide this issue. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the panel's findings in Warren and hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241's limitations on permanent partial disability do not apply to awards of permanent total disability. |
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
Gertrude Jackson and Josephine J. Johnson v. Helen Patton, Executrix of the Estate if Jennie Mai Jackson, Deceased
This will contest case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in sustaining the most recently executed instrument as the testatrix's last will and testament. For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated. |
Supreme Court | ||
In re: Estate of Carleton Elliott Walton, Deceased, Jeffrey O. Walton, Administrator v. Leslie Young
This case presents for review with the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's denial of a claim of paternity. For the reasons set forth, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
James R. Fruge and Jane Fruge v. John and Jane Doe
This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment denying the plaintiff's claims under the uninsured motorist statute. That decision is reversed, and the case is remanded. |
Supreme Court |