Case law

Taylor v. Chandler

56 Tenn. 349 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

The general features of taxation, or of a public burden that may be imposed as such, are thus laid down by Judge Cooley in the case of “The People v. Township Board, reported in 9 Am. … Township Board .

Harmon v. Angus R. Jessup Associates, Inc.

619 S.W.2d 522 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1981

See Norman v. Tennessee State Board of Claims, 533 S.W.2d 719, 724 (Tenn. 1976) and cases cited therein. … Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976).

City of Memphis v. Memphis Water Co.

52 Tenn. 495 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1871

On the 18th of December, 1866, the Mayor and Aldermen passed an ordinance to create a board of commissioners for the erection, care, and maintenance of the Memphis water works. … We know of no better definition of a monopoly, than that given by Lord Coke, and adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Charles River Bridge v.

King v. State

83 Tenn. 51 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1885

Davidson, 2 Cold., 184 , and Thurston v. State, 3 Cold., 115 . … These tracks corresponded in size with the defendant’s foot, and exactly fitted an old shoe of the defendant, which he had left the previous fall at the prosecutor’s house, where he had been boarding.

Schmitt v. Smith

118 S.W.3d 348 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

Brown, Jr., Judge No. … Starks v. Browning, 20 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Tennessee Code Annotated section 23-2-103 (1994) provides a lien to an attorney who is substituted as plaintiff’s counsel after an action has begun.

McQueen v. McCanless, Com'r.

182 Tenn. 453 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 5, 1945

V, page 224. … In Carter v.

Patrece Edwards-Bradford v. Kellogg Company

Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 5, 2023

Dalal is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and is also board-certif,red in independent rnedical evaluations. … Sweat v. Superior Indus., 1nc.,966 S.W.2d 31,32 (Tenn. 1998); Boling v. Raytheon Co.,448 S.W.2d 405, 408 (Tenn. 1969). The Supreme Court reaffirmed this point of law in Trosper v.

Bayless v. Knox County

199 Tenn. 268 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1955

Vance v. … In Hope v.

State v. Brimmer

876 S.W.2d 75 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1994

This instruction, which was in accord with the case law at the time it was given, has been discussed at length in the recent case of State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn.1992). … Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545 , 107 S.Ct. 837, 841 , 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987). The issue is without merit.

State v. Rice

184 S.W.3d 646 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2006

State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tenn.2000) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Crane v. … Brown v. Sanders, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 884, 892 , 163 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006). This new test does not alter our analysis or the result in this case.

Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Amster

134 Tenn. 537 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1915

Ed., 821 ; State v. Webber, 214 Mo., 272 , 113 S. W., 1054 , 15 Ann. Cas., 983; Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn., 68 , 48 N. W., 604 , 12 L. R. A., 373; Lodge v. Johnson, 98 Tex., 1 , 81 S. … In Brown v.

State v. Cumberland Club

136 Tenn. 84 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1916

State v. Fickle, 3 Lea (71 Tenn.), 79; Garvin v. State, 13 Lea (81 Tenn.); 162; Railroad v. Crider, 91 Tenn., 489, 493 , 19 S. W., 618 ; State v. Brown, 103 Tenn., 449, 454-456 , 53 S. W., 727 ; State v. … Railroad Companies, supra; State v. *97 Brown, 103 Tenn., 449, 455 , 53 S. W., 727 ; Condon v Maloney, 108 Tenn., 82, 98-100 , 65 S. W., 871 ; Arbuckle v. McCutcheon, 111 Tenn., 514 , 77 S. W., 772 ; Memphis v.

Fryar v. Hamilton County

160 Tenn. 216 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1929

See Woods v. Tipton Co., 7 Baxt., 112 ; Carothers v. Shelby Co., supra; Vance v. Shelby Co., 152 Tenn., 141 . … Board of Education v. Ray, 154 Tenn., 180 ; Vance v. Hale, 156 Tenn., 389 . This fact essential to establish their liability does not appear in the declaration either affirmatively or by reasonable inference.

Dwyer v. State National Bank

114 Tenn. 693 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1905

In Imboden v. … In the case of Florence Mining Company v. Brown, Receiver, etc., 124 U. S., 391 , 8 Sup. Ct, 534, 31 L. Ed., 424 , Mr.

Lightfoot v. Grove

52 Tenn. 473 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1871

Brown, 4 Yerg, 198. … We do not think it necessary to review the case of Wade v.

Norton v. Ailor

79 Tenn. 563 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1883

It is also charged that respondent promised to pay reasonable board for the ward, but had only paid $175. $100 per annum is claimed in the bill as due complainant, less the $175 paid. … After the death of the child, his views we suspect •changed, and hence this suit. *566 The law governing this case is thus stated by this court in Maguinay v.

State v. Springfield

97 Tenn. 302 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1896

Brown and others, against John H. Springfield, to have bis office as Justice of the Peace declared vacant, on account of alleged abandonment. … As correctly said by the Court of Chancery Appeals, this Court virtually settled the principle controlling this case, when it, in the late case of Strain v.

Sherman v. State

125 Tenn. 19 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1911

Brown v. State, 85 Tenn., 439 ; Hannum v. State, 90 Tenn., 653 . … In the case of Odle v. State, 6 Bax., 159 , the jury was taken to board at a small two-room house, at which place the prosecutor and his two daughters also came to board.

State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Walls

537 S.W.3d 892 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2017

State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186, 192 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Super Flea Mkt. of Chattanooga, Inc. v. Olsen, 677 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. 1984); State ex rel. Lewis v. … Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196, 202 (Tenn. 2009); see also State v.

City of Oak Hill v. State ex rel. First Christian Church

492 S.W.2d 915 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1973

The application was denied by the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals upon the ground relator had only 16.-02 acres of land upon which to construct the buildings. … State v. City of Oak Hill, 204 Tenn. 353 , 321 S.W.2d 557 (1959). The logical and reasonable construction of the Ordinance is that it creates two separate, distinct and noncumulative requirements of acreage.