Case law

In Re Bell

713 F. Supp. 2d 717 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 9, 2010

Judge Shirley also asked Respondent to file a description of the nature and extent of the conflict and to contact the Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) to see when the Board would make a decision on whether Respondent … (citations omitted); Marinangeli v.

Sparks v. Social Security, Commisioner of

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2022

Brown’s opinion. … Brown and Dr. Chaudhuri’s opinions, the remaining question is whether the ALJ’s error is harmless or, alternatively, requires remand. The court in Lorraine R. v.

Davis v. Bedford County Jail

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 27, 2019

Matthews, who is Board certified by the American Board of Preventive Medicine in Public Health/General Preventive Medicine and Occupational Medicine, has served in correctional medicine for over eight years [id. at ¶¶ 2 … See, e.g., Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 752 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403–04 (1997).

Seals v. Loftis

614 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 21, 1985

See Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 3378-79 , 82 L.Ed.2d 664 (1984); see also Papacoda v. Connecticut, 528 F.Supp. 68, 72 (D.Conn.1981); T.G. v. … Board of Education of Piscataway, New Jersey, 576 F.Supp. 420, 423 (D.N.J.1983).

Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, Inc.

32 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 24, 1940

Storm Lake Tub, etc., Factory v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., D.C., 209 F. 895 ; Adams v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., D.C., 210 F. 362 ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. … Co., C.C., 62 F. 904 , on appeal, 8 Cir., 70 F. 201 , 30 L.R.A. 193 ; National Lock Co. v. Chicago Regional Labor Board, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 820 ; Foster & Kleiser Co. v. Special Site Sign Co., 9 Cir., 85 F.2d 742 .

Walker v. Ford Motor Co.

241 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1965

There was a stay of execution of the cancellation pending the administrative proceedings before the state board. … Burnett v.

Inryco, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

471 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 26, 1979

SEC Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U.S. 412 , 95 S.Ct. 1733 , 44 L.Ed.2d 263 (1975); Passenger Corp. v. Passengers Association, 414 U.S. 453 , 94 S.Ct. 690 , 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974). … Business Equipment, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 430 F.Supp. 699 (E.D.Tenn.1975), aff’d 556 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1977).

Southern Roofing & Petroleum Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co.

293 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Oct 8, 1968

Southern filed claim relating to that item with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals which is now pending. … Co. v. Richardson, 23 Tenn.App. 194 , 129 S.W.2d 1107 (1939); Central Drug Store v. Adams, 184 Tenn. 541 , 201 S.W.2d 682 (1947); Dubois v. Gentry, 182 Tenn. 103 , 184 S.W.2d 369 (1945); Southern Style Shops v.

Ramsey v. United Mine Workers of America

265 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 4, 1967

United States v. … Meat Cutters Union v.

Gill v. Union Carbide Corporation

368 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 19, 1973

Review boards at various levels were established to scrutinize those who had been selected for possible termination by the divisional directors. In plaintiff’s division, there was a three-man board of which Mr. … Hodgson v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 455 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1972); Stringfellow v. Monsanto Company, 320 F.Supp. 1175 (W.D.Ark. 1970); Monroe v.

Messner v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Oct 24, 2000

Parker v. … to the Board was utilized.

Gentry v. Richardson

354 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · May 3, 1972

Bradsher, Jr., a Board certified specialist in thoracic surgery, addressed to Dr. … See Halsey v. Richardson, 441 F.2d 1230 (C.A.6, 1971); Ross v. Richardson, 440 F.2d 690 (C.A.6, 1971); Ragan v. Finch, 435 F.2d 239 (C.A.6,1970).

Goodson v. American Home Assurance Company

251 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 25, 1966

Moore v. … National Bank of Commerce v. New York Life Ins. Co., 181 Tenn. 299 , 181 S.W.2d 151 ; Burk v. Mutual Benefit Health and Acc.

Marshall v. LOCAL UNION NO. 815, UNITED TEXTILE

479 F. Supp. 613 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 9, 1979

. § 411 (a)(2); Retail Clerks Union, Local 648 v. Retail Clerks Int. … Wyman-Gordon Company v. N. L. R. B., C.A. 1st (1969), 397 F.2d 394, 396 [1], reversed (but affirmed on this point) sub nom. NLRB v.

Wilson v. Winstead

470 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 1978

Morrison v. … United States v.

Card v. Standard Coal & Coke Co.

202 F. 351 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 29, 1912

Schlochtermeyer, supra), and, by analogy, ice cream freezers in common use (Brown v. Piper, 13 Wall. [91 U. S.] 37, 43, 23 L. Ed. 200 ). … American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin Fibre Co., supra; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Adkins, supra; Gilbert v. Post, supra. [3] 3.

Berrios v. Memorial Hospital, Inc.

403 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 29, 1975

Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556 , [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L.Ed. 1093 ]. … Also, in Meredith v.

United States v. Log Mountain Mining Co.

550 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 21, 1982

United States v. Hill, 533 F.Supp. 810 (E.D.Tenn.1982); United States v. Thompson Brothers Coal Co., Inc., 532 F.Supp. 979 (W.D.Pa.1982); B & M Coal Corp. v. … “V.

D.B. Ex Rel. Brogdon v. LaFon

452 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 30, 2006

In West v. … In Melton v.

Smith v. Parmley

558 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 21, 1982

. * * * ” Fleming v. Gardner, D.C.Tenn. (1978), 84 F.R.D. 217 [1], citing Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495, 504 , 67 S.Ct. 385, 390 , 91 L.Ed. 451, 459 . … Parmley did not except to this part of the pretrial order, and such stipulation is binding on him, the other parties to this action, and the Court. 3 Brown v.