Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker - Concurring
Although I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the grant of custody to the father, I write separately to condemn the appearance of impropriety this case exudes. As the United |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson
On October 15, 1997, the defendant was convicted of delivering cocaine and he was sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary. The defendant was tried along with a co-defendant Reggie Barton. In the course of the trial, statements made by Barton implicated the defendant. The defendant raises the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant’s Motion To Sever the trial should have been granted? 2. Whether the co-defendant’s statement to the confidential informant should have been excluded or redacted? We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02A01-9712-CV-
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9805-CV-
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9804-CH-
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Siegel vs. David Siegel
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Austin vs. Gregory Graflund
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Larry Mangum, v. Golden Gallon Corporation
This premises liability action involves a disabled person who was injured when he tripped on a floor mat while entering a convenience market in Decherd. The patron’s suit against the market, originally filed in the Chancery Court for Franklin County but later transferred to the Circuit Court for Franklin County, alleged that the market had created a dangerous condition, especially for patrons using crutches, by placing the floor mat at its entrance. The market moved for summary judgment, relying on the deposition testimony of the patron, two employees of the market, and the market's surveillance camera videotape of the patron’s fall. The trial court granted the motion, and the patron has appealed. We have determined that the market is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and, accordingly, affirm the summary judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Burson & Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the Metropolitan Planning Commission
Burson and Simpson Lodge Developments, Inc. ("Burson & Simpson") appeals from the trial court’s affirmance of a decision rendered by the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), whereby the Planning Commission characterized a proposed amendment to a planned unit development as a “basic change in development concept,” and whereby the Planning Commission disapproved the amendment. We find that, based upon the record before this Court, the Planning Commission’s disapproval of the proposed amendment was illegal, arbitrary, or capricious and, therefore, we reverse the holding of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William D. Pewitt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William D. Pewitt, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from his 1994 convictions for witness coercion, a Class D felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. William D. Pewitt, No. 01C01-9411-CC-00375, Williamson County (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 1996), app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 1, 1997). The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, allowing amendment of the petition with the aid of counsel, or holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Anderson v. Hacks Crossing Partners, et al.
Plaintiff Steve Anderson appeals the trial court’s order which dismissed his complaint seeking specific performance and other relief against Defendants/Appellees Hacks Crossing Partners and Exxon Corporation. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Browning Construction Company v. Lawrence E. Steinburg and John W. Browning, Sr., - Concurring
This is a suit to enforce a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien. The plaintiff asserted it made improvements to real property based on an agreement with the owner of the property. The property owner moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant property owner, and the plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Jorge Ariel Sanjines v. State of Tennessee
After a careful review of the remaining issues, we find that the appellant was improperly convicted of multiple inchoate offenses, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, for the criminal conduct against his ex-wife, Gina Sanjines. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-106(a) (Supp. 1994). Neither the defense nor the State considered section 39-12-106(a) when they constructed the plea agreement in this case. We conclude that the error was prejudicial and, accordingly, reverse the conviction of attempted murder.2 The remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bohannon v. Asplundh Tree Expert
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ralph Warren v. Tml Insurance Pool
|
Warren | Workers Compensation Panel | |
James v. Travelers Ins. Co.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ronald C. Tillman v. Madison County Sheriff's Department
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Diana Morris v. State of Tennessee
This case requires us to determine whether the Tennessee Claims Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions filed against the State for the tort of retaliatory discharge.1 Because we conclude that the Claims Commission does not have such jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating the Claims Commission’s award and dismissing the retaliatory discharge action is affirmed. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Frances Miller Bell by Janet Snyder, Conservator & Attorney-In-Fact v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, P.A., and William Gordon Bell and Hunton & Williams and Long, Ragsdale and Waters
We granted this appeal to determine whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for abuse of process. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege one of the essential elements of the tort -- an improper act in the use of process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Zagorski vs. State of TN
|
Robertson | Supreme Court | |
Robin Berry, et al vs. Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals, et al
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
James & Mary McCain vs. Cary Vaughn
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02C01-9806-CC-00187Cecil
|
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The Estate of John L. Harper, Deceased
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Wayne Adams v. Jimmy Dean Foods, et al
|
Wayne | Workers Compensation Panel |