Opinions
01A01-9605-GS-00237
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9608-CH-00364
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
02C01-9510-CC-00307
|
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9509-CR-00277
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9412-CC-00265
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9412-CC-00265
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9507-CR-00179
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9509-CC-00085
|
Supreme Court | ||
02A01-9511-CV-00251
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02C01-9411-CC-00245
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9505-CR-00146
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9607-CV-00156
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9605-CH-00162
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9604-CV-00153
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9602-JV-00043
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
02C01-9605-CR-00173
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03S01-9603-CV-00033
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
01S01-9509-CR-00151
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Higgs
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9510-CR-00330
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ty Farming Company, Inc., v. George Belew and The County of Dyer, Tennessee
Plaintiff-Appellant, TY Farming Company, Inc. (“TY Farming”), appeals the judgment of the trial court denying TY Farming’s claims against Defendants-Appellees Dyer County (“Dyer County”) and George Belew (“Belew”) relative to a dirt road which crossed properties owned by TY Farming, Belew, and other landowners in Dyer County. The trial court found that the dirt road had been abandoned by the County and the general public, that the road was no longer a public road, and, therefore, that the County had no obligation to maintain the road. Accordingly, the judgment denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against the County and dismissed the County from the lawsuit. With regard to TY Farming’s claim against Belew, the judgment granted TY Farming an easement across the property of Belew. The trial court further found that Belew had deprived TY Farming of its previously existing easement of ingress and egress to its property, but the court found that TY Farming had suffered no damages because it had continuous access to its property by another route. Accordingly, the trial court denied TY Farming’s claim for damages against Belew and dismissed TY Farming’s complaint in its entirety. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario A. Lavender and Eric L. Hobbs
The appellants, Mario A. Lavender and Eric Hobbs, were found guilty of two counts of robbery, a Class C felony, and one count of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony, by a jury of their peers. The trial court found that Lavender was a standard offender and imposed Range I sentences as follows: (1) count 1, robbery, confinement for six (6) years in the Department of Correction, (2) count 2, robbery, confinement for six (6) years in the Department of Correction, and (3) count 4, theft, confinement for four (4) years in the Department of Correction. The trial court found that Hobbs was a multiple offender and imposed the following Range II sentences: (1) count 1, robbery, confinement for ten (10) years in the Department of Correction, (2) count 2, robbery, confinement for ten (10) years in the Department of Correction, and (3) count 4, theft, confinement for four (4) years in the Department of Correction. The trial court ordered that the sentences are to be served consecutively. The effective sentence for Lavender is sixteen (16) years, and the effective sentence for Hobbs is twenty-four (24) years. In this Court, both Lavender and Hobbs contend that the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive. Hobbs also contends that the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by (a) denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police and (b) denying his motion in limine, which sought to deny the State of Tennessee the right to use his prior convictions to impeach him if he opted to testify. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law applicable to the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |