Daniel L. Sanders vs. State
|
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Waline vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James E. Frazier
|
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jason Kennedy Frazier
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Danny Lynn Porter
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. David Proffitt
|
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Dewaynn Porter - Concurring
We granted this appeal to determine whether the common law "procuring agent defense" has been abolished by statute. We hold that the procuring agent defense was abolished by Tenn. Code Ann. §39-11-203 (e)(2) which expressly states that "[d]efenses available under common law are here by abolished." The trial court appropriately declined to instruct the jury on the procuring agent defense, and the defendant's conviction for selling a controlled substance was supported by the evidence. |
Hardin | Supreme Court | |
Ricky Myers v. Carrier Corporation
|
Grundy | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Monika Pelis v. Precision Printing & Packaging
|
Montgomery | Workers Compensation Panel | |
John Darren Welker v. Bridgestone/Firestone
|
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Allen Dale Jarvis v. Nissan Motor Mfg Corp.
|
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
James E. Rainey v. Micro Craft, Inc., et al
|
Workers Compensation Panel | ||
Betty Jo Reeves v. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., et al
|
Lewis | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Roger Lee Dailey v. Ez Loader Boat Trailers, et al
|
Franklin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jody Maynard Falk v. Saturn Corp.
|
Maury | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Timothy Gene Green v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance & Fleetwood
|
Workers Compensation Panel | ||
Don Brunetti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Williamson County, et al. - Concurring
This is an appeal of the trial court’s affirmance, in a writ of certiorari action, of a decision of the Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals interpreting and applying provisions of the Williamson County Zoning Ordinance. The Appellant, Mr. Brunetti, is a neighbor of Mr. Brian Sanders, and objects to the operation of two grain bins (sometimes referred to as silos) on Mr. Sanders’s 5-acre parcel in Williamson County, which is zoned “Estate.” The Board of Zoning Appeals interpreted state statute and local ordinance to allow this “agricultural” use. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Joanne Thompson Barrett v. Marilyn Young Hill - Concurring
This case involves a dispute between neighbors over a sewer line. The Defendant, Marilyn Hill, appeals the trial court’s finding of an easement by implication in favor of the Plaintiff, Joanne Barrett, across Ms. Hill’s property for the purpose of connecting Ms. Barrett’s property to the city sewer line. We affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
William Jones v. Jeff Reynolds, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction
Plaintiff William Jones appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction in this dispute over the Department’s calculation of Jones’ sentence reduction credits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Catherine Edmundson v. Jimmy C.Grisham, d/b/a Germantown Pest Control, Germantown Termite & Pest Conrol, Inc., et al., - Concurring
Defendants Jimmy C. Grisham, d/b/a Germantown Pest Control, Germantown Termite and Pest Control, Inc., and Christopher D. Alexander appeal the trial court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Catherine Edmundson in the amount of $50,000. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Cobb v. Charles Wilson, et al.
Steven Cobb appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint against Charles Wilson, Evelyn Scallions, and Steve Vaughn. The complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of Cobb’s rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. James Tyrone Harbison
The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Mark M. Gesner
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Electric Controls, et al., v. Ponderosa Fibres of America, et al.
Defendant Vanderbilt Industrial Contracting Corporation (VICC) appeals the trial court’s judgments which awarded attorney’s fees to two of VICC’s co-defendants in this lawsuit, Kajima International, Inc., and Titan Contracting and Leasing Company. We reverse the trial court’s judgments based upon our conclusion that the relief awarded exceeds the scope of the relief requested by the parties’ pleadings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Kathleen Stacey v. Donald Ray Stacey
Donald Ray Stacey (Husband) appeals an order modifying the terms of the parties’ final decree of divorce. After almost twenty-eight years of marriage, the parties were divorced on July 6, 1995. The final decree was subsequently amended on July 14, 1995, to require Husband to pay attorney’s fees to Kevin Kathleen Stacey (Wife). Three children were born during the course of the marriage, but only one child, Zachary, was still a minor at the time of the couple’s divorce. Pursuant to the Amended Final Decree of Divorce (amended final decree), Wife was granted sole custody of the minor child with Husband having reasonable visitation. Husband was ordered to pay $1,300.00 in child support per month plus the Child Support Guidelines amount of 21% of his annual bonus up to a total gross income of $9,900.00 (bonus and base salary). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |