Case law

Joseph Deion Page v. Tennessee Board of Parole and Pardons, et al.

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 27, 2026

See Scott v. … Furthermore, while TDOC itself and the Tennessee Board of Parole have offices in this District, “neither the TDOC nor the Board of Parole are suable entities in a § 1983 suit” because they are equivalents of the State of

Hayden v. Memphis

100 Tenn. 582 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1898

In Mayor v. … Tomlinson v. Board of Equalization, 4 Pickle, 1 .

Trails End Campground, LLC v. Brimstone Recreation, LLC

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jan 29, 2015

The Town’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen met on September 27, 2012. … Moreover, an examination of the resolution passed by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen reveals that the mayor did not exceed his authority granted by the board to lease the Town Square.

State of Tennessee v. David Joseph Buckhanon

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 28, 2012

State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 433-34 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298-301 (1973)). … State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 549 (Tenn. 1992). 3 Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions.

Kaylor v. Bradley

912 S.W.2d 728 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 4, 1995

Mayes v. Trammell, 751 F.2d 175, 179 (6th Cir.1984). The parole board removed the presumptions from its regulations in response to the Mayes v. Trammell decision. … Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. at 29-30 , 101 S.Ct. at 964-65 ; Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v.

Zseltvay v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

986 S.W.2d 581 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 31, 1998

Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993); Jahn v. Jahn, 932 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. App. -6- 1996). … The appellant cites us to the case of Neese v.

Marla H., Individually and as Next Best Friend to her Daughter Moriah F. H. v. Knox County

361 S.W.3d 518 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jun 29, 2011

Green, and Thomas Brown, the principal at HMS. The plaintiffs also entered the depositions of Drs. Lees and Paulauskas as trial exhibits. … ) -13- Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462, 480 (Tenn. 2005)). General foreseeability is now a threshold requirement in the duty analysis. Giggers, 277 S.W.3d at 365.

Carver v. Veterans Administration

455 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 15, 1978

The Supreme Court recently held that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 “ * * * provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment. * * * ” Brown v. … See: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Brown v.

Schneider v. Lazarov

216 Tenn. 1 · Tennessee Supreme Court · May 7, 1965

In the case of Howe Realty Co. v. … In the case of Williams v.

Norman v. Southern Railway Co.

119 Tenn. 401 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1907

The bottom of his trousers caught in a projecting nail on the-running board, and he was thrown between the cars. … Tyrus v. Railroad, 114 Tenn., 593 , 86 S. W., 1077 . - In Traction Co. v. Brown, 115 Tenn., 329 , 89 S. W., 320 , opinion by Mr.

Gamblin v. Town of Bruceton

803 S.W.2d 690 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Oct 16, 1990

In Huddleston v. … See Lansden v. Tucker, 204 Tenn. 388 , 321 S.W.2d 795 (1959).

Pryor v. Hays

17 Tenn. 416 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1836

It is objected to this warrant, that it does not státe the form of the action, and the case of Paris v. Brown, 5 Yer. R. 268 is referred to as'sustaining the objection. … A plea of “damages occasioned by beating and wounding the plaintiff,” is just and good and is sustained by the principle _and the entire scope of reasoning, in the case of Parris v. Brown.

State Ex Rel. Campbelle v. Hobbs

174 Tenn. 215 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1939

See Payne v. State, 112 Tenn., 587 , 79 S. W., 1025 ; O’Neil v. State, 115 Tenn., 427 , 90 S. W., 627 , 3 L. R. A. (N. … In Watson v.

Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Mayor of Fayetteville

173 Tenn. 111 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1938

Roberts v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 155 La., 331 , 99 So., 280 . … Knoxville v. Gass, 119 Tenn., 438 , 104 S. W., 1084 ; Memphis St. Railroad v. Byrne, 119 Tenn., 278 , 104 S. W., 460 ; Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn., 82 , 65 S. W., 871 ; State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn., 546 , 32 S.

Crosby v. Holt

320 S.W.3d 805 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Dec 28, 2009

It is presumed that the actions of school boards are reasonable, and therefore not arbitrary and capricious, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Childs v. … It was the Teacher’s burden to prove that the Board acted illegally, arbitrarily of capriciously. Warren v. Polk County Bd. of Educ., 613 S.W.2d 222, 225 (Tenn.1981).

Bankers Trust Company, Guardian v. Hamstead

3 Tenn. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 22, 1926

Hickerson v. Price, 2 Heisk., 623, 626, 627 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 6 Heisk., 240 -242; Hospital v. Fuqua, 1 Lea, 609 , 610; McGlothlin v. Wyatt, 1 Lea, 719 ; Gower v. Shelton, 16 Lea, 655 , 656; Jamison v. … It would perhaps have been sufficient had she worked for her board and sacrified her schooling, as she seems to have done in keeping house for her father, while she was being charged for her board.

Littles v. Campbell

97 S.W.3d 568 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jun 5, 2002

In a petition for certiorari concerning a disciplinary board decision, the only proper party is the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”). See Buford v. … See Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Board, 879 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Yokley v. State, 632 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981).

Gooch v. Electric Power Board of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2022

) No. 3:20-cv-01001 ) ELECTRIC POWER BOARD OF ) METROPOLITAN … See Reeves v.

In Re Carl Edwin Osborne, Jr. Living Trust -Concur in Part/Dissent in Part

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 28, 2026

App. 2005)); Brown v. Brown, No. W2009-02264-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 441266, at *2 (“The entire written agreement must be considered in order to ascertain the parties’ intent.”). … Mar. 29, 2010) (citing Bell v. Shannon, 367 S.W.2d 761, 766 (1963)); see Brown, 2011 WL 441266, at *2. We “should reject no word or clause that can be reasonably reconciled with the remainder” of the trust.

Stockton v. Morris & Pierce

172 Tenn. 197 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1937

Counsel cite particularly as so construing the constitutional provision, or the statute, or both, Insurance Co. v. Craig, 106 Tenn., 621 , 62 S. W., 155, 157 ; Quinton v. Board of Claims, 165 Tenn., 201 , 54 S. … In Quinton v. Board of Claims, 165 Tenn., 201 , 54 S.