Case law

Parker v. State

177 Tenn. 380 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 24, 1941

Parker was standing next to running board of car and told him that I was going to search him. Mr. … In Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn., 544 , 238 S. W., 588 , 594, 20 A. L.

Quinn v. Railroad

28 L.R.A. 552 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 2, 1895

Robinson v. Webb, 11 Bush, 464 . To the same effect is Mound City Co. v. Conlon, 92 Mo., 221 ; Wiltse v. State, etc., 63 Mich., 639 ; Anderson v. Bordecker, 17 Ill. App., 213 . … In accord with these are the cases of Lautheim v. Motherland Steamship Co., 13 N. E. Rep., 781 (S. C., 107 N. Y., 228 ); O'Brien v. Cunard, 28 N. E. Rep., 266; Secord v. Railway Co., 18 Fed. Rep., 221; McDonald v. Mass.

Thompson v. City of Chattanooga

143 Tenn. 477 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1920

Los Angeles, 141 Cal., 503 , 75 Pac., 111 ; Columbus v. Mc *485 Daniel, 117 Ga., 823 , 45 S. E., 59 Atchison v. King, 9 Kan., 550 ; Lincoln v. Finkle, 41 Neb., 575 , 59 N. W., 915 ; Reining v . City of Buffalo, 102 N. … The case of Railroad v. Brown, 125 Tenn., 354 , 143 S.

Fred Cantrell Co. v. Goosie

148 Tenn. 282 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1923

McNally v. Hudson & M. R. R. Co., 87 N. J. Law, 455, 95 Atl., 122 ; Henly v. Oklahoma Union R. R. Co., 81 Okla., 224 , 197 Pac., 488 , 18 A. L. R., 427; Rothwell v. Davies, 19 Times Law Rep. (Eng.), 423; Tutton v. … (Eng.), 32; Hay’s Wharf v. Brown (1909), 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.), 84; Burgess & Co. v. Jewell (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. (Eng.), 145; Shirt v. Calico Printers’ Association (1909), 2 K. B. (Eng.), 51.

Tennessee Products & Chemical Corp. v. Taylor

190 Tenn. 130 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1950

In the earliest of these cases, Benedict Bros. v. Davidson County, 110 Tenn. 183, 187, 189 , 67 S. … Following the Benedict case, supra,' this Court in Darnell & Son Co. v. Memphis, 116 Tenn. 424 , 95 S. W. 816 , and in Neuhoff Packing Co. v. Sharpe, 146 Tenn. 293 , 240 S.

Moore v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.

148 Tenn. 561 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1923

not sufficiently establish, as already indicated, the fact that Moore’s movements on this occasion, either the direction he was following or fatal crossing between the cars he attempted, were controlled by a purpose to board … Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Smith, 145 Tenn., 552, 532 , 238 S. W., 97 ; Patten Hotel Co. v. Millner, 145 Tenn., 638 , 238 S. W., 75 ; Johhson Coffee Co. v. McDonald, 143 Tenn., 505 , 226 S. W., 215 ; Milne v.

Lindsey v. Hunt

215 Tenn. 406 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1964

The board on which he was walking was used by the employees as a walk way and had been placed there for that purpose. … It- was held in 1953 in Gibbons v. Mutual Ben.

Shelby County v. Mississippi & Tennessee Railroad

84 Tenn. 401 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1886

State, 8 Heis., 663; State v. Railroad Company, 14 Lea, 56 , 63. … And the company had the opportunity of furnishing any evidence it saw proper, including all the data railroad companies are required to furnish the State Board of Assessors, which might tend to show the true facts, and to

Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc.

142 S.W.3d 288 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2004

In June of 1998, the employee filed a claim with the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation. … Bradshaw v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting Gray v. Holloway Constr. Co., 834 S.W.2d 277, 282 (Tenn. 1992)).

Adams v. Mayor of Somerville

39 Tenn. 363 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1859

It is no valid objection, therefore, that the Board, in the exercise of this discretionary power, has proceeded upon a different principle, or in a different mode, from that adopted by the Legislature in respect to State … Mayor and Aldermen of Columbia v. Beasly, 1 Hum., 232 , 240. The principle of taxation applicable to property, is altogether impracticable in regard to privileges.

Whitaker v. House

213 Tenn. 61 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1963

Indicative of reargument is the appellants ’ reliance on Philadelphia v. Keystone Battery, 169 Pa. 526 , 32 A. 428 (1895). … Nashville v. Board of Equalization, 210 Tenn. 587, 618 , 360 S.W.2d 458, 472 (1962); Caruthers, History of a Lawsuit 508 (7th ed. 1951), and cases cited therein.

Wurzburg v. New York Life Ins.

140 Tenn. 59 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1918

Co. v. Board Armstrong & Co., 115 Va., 836 , 80 S. E., 565 , L. R. A., 1915F, 979. We think both these cases are sound. A corporation is often quite dependent upon the service of particular officers for its prosperity. … Ins., Co. v. Schaefer, supra and Keckley v. Coshocton Glass Co., supra.

Gas-light Co. v. Memphis

93 Tenn. 612 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1894

The Board of Commissioners constitute an agency or instrumentality of the Taxing District, and the plea of the statute of limitations is unavailing as a defense to the city. … In the case of Gas Company v.

Deitch v. City of Chattanooga

195 Tenn. 245 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1953

Bristol v. Burrow, 73 Tenn. 128 ; McMinnville v. Stroud, 109 Tenn. 569 , 72 S. W. 949 ; Kelly & Co. v. Conner, 122 Tenn. 339, 390 , 123 S. W. 622 , 25 L. R A., N. S., 201; City of Nashville v. … Brinkley v. State, 125 Tenn. 371, 386 , 143 S. W. 1120 , 1123.

State Ex Rel. Southerland v. Town of Greeneville

201 Tenn. 133 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1956

Southerland and a number of other individuals, all'of whom are owners of property outside the city limits of the Town of Greeneville hut adjacent thereto, filed this bill against the Town of Greeneville and the Board of Mayor … This expression was used in the case of State ex rel. v.

Cunnyngham v. Shelby

136 Tenn. 176 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1916

Its board of directors and stockholders were permitted to meet at this office and confer concerning the business of the concern, and it kept and used at this office a corporate seal. … Morton v. Hart, supra.

Brinkley v. Boyd

56 Tenn. 149 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

Such is the current of authorities here, and we are not disposed to depart from them: Comparee v. Brockway, 11 Hum., 353 ; Cahal v. Frierson, 3 Hum., 411 ; Clouston v. Barbier, 4 Sneed, 336 ; Lester v. … Pain, 39 Barb., 616 ; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Hill, 416 ; Brown v. Curtis, 2 Comstock, 227; Herrick v. Carman, 12 Johns., 159 ; Tillman v. Wheeler, 17 Johns., 336 ; 4 Watts, 449 : 28 Penn., 44 ; 44 Penn., 142 .

Godwin v. Taenzer

122 Tenn. 101 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1909

The principle thus announced has been recognized and applied in Nesbitt v. St. Paul L. B. R. Co., 21 Minn., 491 ; Central Coal, etc., Co. v. John Henry Shoe Co., 69 Ark., 302, 63 S. W., 49 ; Everson v. … It is insisted, however, by the counsel for defendant, that a different rule has been established in this State in the cases of Dougherty v. Chestnutt, 86 Tenn., 12 , 5 S. W., 444 , and Holt v.

State v. Reid

91 S.W.3d 247 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2002

In State v. … Martell admitted that, although there is Board Certification and Recognition in the field of neurop-sychology, he has never applied for board certification in the field of neuropsycholo-gy.

Lock v. Turnpike Co.

100 Tenn. 163 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1897

Ryan v. Hays, 62 Texas, 42 ; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S., 253 ; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S., 130 ; Hale v. Frost, 99 U. S., 389 ; Miltenberger v. Railway, 106 U. S., 287 ; Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va., 701 ; Railroad v. … Ry. v.