State vs. Eric Woodard
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tyrone Meade
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dorothy Ahern vs. Robert Ahern
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Margaret Haas vs. Michael Haas
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. David Krantz
|
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Walker vs. State, Ex Rel, Donal Campbell, etc.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Walker vs. State, Ex Rel, Donal Campbell, etc.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jackie Robinson vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Timothy Lane
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. William Jett
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Re: International Fidelity Insurance
|
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9701-CR-0007
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ellis vs. State
|
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Doyal
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Freeman
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Bradley
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Harrill
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Canter
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Pierce
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Pierce
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Goins
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M. Davis vs. State
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Brooks
|
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Crittenden vs. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Frank Crittenden, appeals as of right the Morgan County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ann C. Short v. Charles E. Ferrell in his official capacity as the Administrative Director of the Courts
This cause comes to us on a common law writ of certiorari to review a fee dispute in a post-conviction proceeding involving an indigent defendant, David McNish. The issue is whether an attorney appointed to review the records in a post-conviction proceeding may exceed the maximum allowable rates for attorneys representing indigent defendants. We hold that: (1) Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 (1996) required an attorney performing services as an "expert" to obtain prior approval for an hourly rate in excess of the hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13; and (2) the trial court should have explicitly set forth the approved "expert" hourly rate in its order if such rate was intended to exceed the normal hourly rate provided for attorneys in Rule 13. |
Davidson | Supreme Court |