State vs. Devon Crawford
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Donald Culbreath & Genna McCallie
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Thomas Boone
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Francesca Turner & Charles Taylor
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michelle Ball for herself and next of kind of Miranda K. Ball, Deceased, v. Hamilton County Emergency Medical Services
This civil action was filed by Michelle Ball ("Ms Ball") against Hamilton County Emergency Medical Services ("HCEMS") and others, seeking damages for the wrongful death of Ms. Ball's 16-month-old daughter, Miranda K. Ball ("Miranda"). The suit against HCEMS brought into play the provision of the Govermental Tort Liability Act. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed the complaint as to HCEMS, finding that HCEMS did not have a duty to transport Miranda to the hospital in the face of her mother's decision at the child's condition was not such as to require a trip to the hospital. The court further fond that HCEMS' emergency medical technicians ("the EMTS") did not violate their standard of care by failing to advise Ms. Ball that croup could be life-threatening under certain circumstances. Ms. Ball appealed, raising issues that present the following questions for our determination: |
Court of Appeals | ||
Howell vs. Chase
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Robert D. Fulcher, III and wife, Eleanor Fulcher and Allen-Fulcher Partnership, v. R. Chancellor Allen and H. Stanley Allen, Trustee, and Harwell-Allen Partnership
This appeal involves a dispute between partners. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert D. Fulcher III, Eleanor Fulcher, and Allen-Fulcher Partnership, appeal the trial court’s ruling in favor of Appellees, R. Chancellor Allen, H. Stanley Allen, and Harwell-Allen Partnership. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Meredith Garmon v. Fisk University, Henry Ponder, President, Reavis L. Mitchell, Dean of Academic Affairs
A white college professor denied tenure sued his university employer for breach of contract and racial discrimination. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed both claims. We reverse the judgment dismissing the contract claim and affirm the ruling on the discrimination claim. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
A.D. Barker vs. State of Tennessee
The Petition er, A. D . Barke r, appe als the order o f the Se vier County Circuit Court dismissing his petition fo r post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vanderbilt University Medical Center v. The County of Macon, Lafayette, Tennessee - Concurring
Vanderbilt University Medical Center (“Vanderbilt”) filed suit in the Chancery Court of Davidson County against Macon County (“County”) seeking a judgment against County in the amount of $20,671.95 for medical services rendered by Vanderbilt in Nashville to an inmate who had been in the custody of County and who had been brought to Vanderbilt for treatment. Both Vanderbilt and County filed motions for summary judgment, supported by affidavit or affidavits. Following a hearing, the chancellor denied County’s summary judgment motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Vanderbilt. On appeal, County has raised two issues which are as follows:
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Adkins v. Beech Grove Processing
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Underwood v. Robinson Mfg.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly ruled that the prosecution abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors in denying the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s written letter denying diversion did not discuss all of the relevant factors, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the prosecutor to testify as to the factors that were considered in denying pretrial diversion. |
Carroll | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Dissenting
I disagree with the majority's holding in this case that the district attorney |
Jackson | Supreme Court | |
Teri Michelle Parker v. Richard Ken Parker
We granted the appeal in this child custody case to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding the effects of an interracial relationship on the child and in later excluding the trial court’s comments from the statement of evidence. |
Supreme Court | ||
Underwood vs. Charter Federal
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Gouge vs. Ryan
|
Court of Appeals | ||
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 |