State of Tennessee vs. Darrell Braddock
On Septem ber 12, 1996, a Shelby County jury found Appellant, Darrell E. Braddock, guilty of first degree felony m urder, criminal attem pt: to wit especially aggravated robbery, criminal attempt: to wit murder in the first degree, and two counts of aggravated assault. Appellant appeals from his convictions, raising two issues:
After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually; Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually
The plaintiff describes himself as a whistle blower, as that term has come to be used, and seeks damages for his termination from employment because he allegedly refused to participate in and keep silent about certain allegedly illegal corporate activities. The allegations were denied by the defendants whose motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appeals and presents for review the issues of (1) whether he was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment or whether these reasons were pretextual, (2) whether a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge remains viable in this jurisdiction, and (3) whether his termination constituted outrageous conduct by the defendants. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial Court is denovo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a presumption of thecorrectness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P., RULE 13(d). See, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). We will refer to the plaintiff as Hubrig, or as the appellant, or as the plaintiff. This record is unusually prolix; prima facie, it appeared to reflect a trial by affidavit, an impermissible use of RULE 56, see: Womack v. Blue Cross- Blue Shield, 593 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. 1980), but an in-depth analysis reveals that the trial court correctly held that the totality of the evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of fact or law. We therefore affirm the judgment. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee vs. William Robert Diaz
The appellant, William Robert Diaz, appeals as of right the convictions and sentences he received in the Criminal Court of Anderson County. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder and was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to twenty-two (22) years for the murder and to twelve (12) years for attempted murder.1 The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hon. Frank v. Williams,
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ronnie Erwin v. Moon Products
|
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Cunningham vs. Baker, et al
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State vs. Pam Davis
|
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Mario Boyd
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Regan vs. Malone
|
Court of Appeals | ||
McClellan vs. Stanley
|
Court of Appeals | ||
DHS vs. Epps
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Miller vs. Hembree
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Foulke vs. City of Greeneville
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9901-CH-00015
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Russell vs. Crutchfield
|
Court of Appeals | ||
City of Blaine vs. Hayes
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Greene vs. Evans
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State vs. Stanley Harville a/k/a Stanley Salahuddin
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Garrett Raines
|
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State vs. Jesse James Gilbert
|
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allman vs. Allman
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Jon Hall
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Crawford
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James McClenton
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Frederick Edwards
|
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals |