01A01-9509-CV-00405
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
01A01-9507-CH-00316
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03C01-9505-CR-00137
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C0l-9406-CR-002l3
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy Baines vs. Wilson County
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9410-CH-00230
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
02A01-9410-CH-00230
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Carl Owens v. Truckstops of America, Truckstops of America, Inc. v. B. Michael Design, Inc. and Vitro Products, Inc. - Dissenting
Based on the plaintiff's expectations at the time he filed this lawsuit in 1988, I agree with the majority that, in this transition case, it is reasonable to permit the plaintiff to recover from the defendants that he named in his complaint ("Truckstops") all of his damages that were proximately caused by Truckstops and that were not attributable to the plaintiff's own fault (if any). I also agree with the majority that it is fair in this transition case to permit Truckstops to receive contribution from the parties that were named by Truckstops as third-party defendants. However, I believe that the contribution should be based on the parties' respective percentages of fault, and that this method should apply not only to the negligence claims set forth in the thirdparty complaint, but to the strict products liability claim as well. If liability were thus linked to fault on each claim in the third-party complaint, each defendant (including the third-party defendants) would be liable only for the percentage of the plaintiff's damages that was caused by that defendant's fault, and the doctrine of joint and several liability would have no application. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9502-CR-00019
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
03C01-9406-CR-00244
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03A01-9508-CH-00293
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9507-JV-00246
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
03A01-9510-CV-00365
|
Court of Appeals | ||
03A01-9510-CH-00357
|
Court of Appeals | ||
01S01-9503-CC-00036
|
Supreme Court | ||
01S01-9505-CR-00085
|
Supreme Court | ||
State of Tennessee v. Billy D. Frasier - Dissenting
I dissent from the majority's holding that a person arrested for driving under the influence of an intoxicant will be denied the right to consult with counsel prior to submitting to a breath test, regardless of the circumstances, and also from the majority's holidng that the defendant's right against self-incrimination would not be violated by the adminssion of his refusal to submit to the breath test as evidence of intoxication.
|
Putnam | Supreme Court | |
02S01-9406-CV-00032
|
Supreme Court | ||
03S01-9503-CV-00029
|
Supreme Court |