01C01-9511-CR-00367
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9601-CC-00033
|
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9604-CR-00158
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Driber vs. Physicians Health Care
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01C01-9603-CC-00114
|
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9602-CR-00062
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
I Concurred With The Majority In Arnold Carter v. State, No. 03C01-9509-Cc-
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Sluder
|
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9601-CR-00022
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9404-CR-00157
|
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9511-CC-00343
|
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9601-CC-00023
|
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9508-CC-00250
|
Unicoi | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jessie James Jones, Jr. v. Cigna Insurance Companies
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Carmella Mccadams v. Henry County Board of Education
|
Henry | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Alma J. Milam v. Mci Telecommunications Corp., et al
|
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas D. Smith
|
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Larry Turnbo vs. Brenda Jane (Thompson) Turnbo
The defendant/appellee has filed a respectful petition to rehear. It appears that a rehearing is appropriate, and same is hereby granted. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Tina R. Guffey vs. Wenco of Shelbyville, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's Restaurant - Concurring
This is a “slip and fall case” in which the jury awarded $173,250, and the defendant appealed. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
Jonthan Hyler v. Charles Traughber, Chairman Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al.
The captioned petitioner has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing his petition for certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles denying hisapplication for parole from the custody of the Department of Correction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Kindall v. Jim H. Rose - Concurring
The captioned petitioner, an inmate of an institution operated by a private contractor for the Tennessee Department of Correction, has appealed from the summary dismissal of his petition for certiorari for review of disciplinary actions of the defendants. |
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
This appeal is taken from the trial court’s order of June 7, 1995, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Service Merchandise Company, Inc. (hereinafter, “Service Merchandise”). Specifically, the trial court found that there was no proof of a dangerous condition created by Service Merchandise and no proof that Service Merchandise had either actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed. Upon consideration of the record before us, the trial court’s order is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Erma Hardesty and Jim Hardesty, v. Service Merchandise Company, Inc.
The majority holds that the plaintiff cannot establish constructive notice. I am constrained to agree. However, I invite our Supreme Court to revisit this area of law. |
Court of Appeals | ||
City Bank & Trust Company and B. Timothy Pirtle, v. Dave Allen Webb and Debbie Lynn Webb
This is an appeal by defendants Dave Allen Webb and wife Debbie Lynn Webb, from the trial court's judgment setting aside a foreclosure sale and, in effect, putting the parties in the same position they were in before the foreclosure. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Nathan Jack Toler, a minor child, B/N/F Shirley Lack and Shirley Lack next of kin and as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan Jack Toler, Jr., v. City of Cookeville, D/B/A Cookeville General Hospital, et al.
Appellee, Dr. Mark Giese, is one of several defendants involved in a medical malpractice suit arising out of the alleged wrongful death of Nathan Jackson Toler, Jr. The trial court entered an interlocutory order granting summary judgment to Dr. Giese based upon the plaintiffs' failure to properly secure service of process on him. Pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9, Plaintiffs have appealed. We have determined that the trial court was correct and therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals |