Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersTN

10,000+ results

2.02s

  • Horton, Mark v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    2020 TN WC 19 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Feb 7, 2020

    .: 2019-04-0068 Employee, ) ) V. ) ) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ) State File No.: 75773-2016 Employer, ) ) And ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. … To appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, you must: 1.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • John R. Fuller v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America

    Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 19, 2020

    Brown intercepted and forged Fuller’s endorsement on the checks. … Brown’s violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff alleges Brown violated the TCPA by fraudulently endorsing and depositing two checks dated March 20, 2009.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Green v. Crescent Amusement Co.

    32 Tenn. App. 554 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 30, 1949

    “In Bejach v. Colby, 141 Tenn. 686, 693 , 214 S. … In Brown v. Brown, 16 Tenn. App. 230 , 64 S.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • State v. Curtis Lee Majors

    Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 30, 1997

    See State v. Brown, 795 S.W.2d 689, 694 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Five factors are to be 1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. 2 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. … Brown, 795 S.W.2d at 694. A showup is a form of identification of a defendant that is inherently suggestive.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

    2022 TN WC 66 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Sep 2, 2022

    Instead, the Court is fettered with the obligation to deem controlling only the opinions of higher tribunals such as the Appeals Board. See Palmer v. Hardy, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. … In Eaves v. Ametek, Inc., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cawood v. Davis

    680 S.W.2d 795 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 16, 1984

    The defendant-appellee is Ronald Davis, who served as Disciplinary Counsel to the Board of Professional Responsibility (hereinafter, the Board) at the time relevant to this action. … Wilson City Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 656 S.W.2d 846 (Tenn.App.1983), quoting Kilbourne v. Hanzelik, 648 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tenn.1983) (concurring opinion, J. Harbison).

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • John R. Jackson v. State of Tennessee

    Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Jul 20, 2018

    State v. White, 114 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999); Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975). … Brown lied to the police.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Vaccarella v. Vaccarella

    49 S.W.3d 307 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Feb 9, 2001

    See Brown v. Brown, 863 S.W.2d 432 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993). The Tennessee Code does not require the court to complete an independent investigation prior to signing the parties’ divorce decree. … Brown, 863 S.W.2d at 436 .

    Cited 51 timesPublished
  • Christina K. Collins v. Tennessee Department of Health

    Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 27, 2023

    .”); Johnson v. Tenn. Bd. of Nursing, No. M2005-02129-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 624353, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007) (“The Board is authorized by Tenn. … Dep’t of Health, Div. of Health Related Boards v. Odle, No. 01A01-9207-CH- 00267, 1993 WL 21976, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 1993).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • M. F. Parsley & Co. v. Cole & Miller

    1 Tenn. App. 714 · Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Mar 13, 1926

    The buildings were duly accepted by the board and the board paid into Dr. Woodward’s hands the sum of $3,785.91, which was the balance of the contract prices of both buildings. … These sections have been under consideration by the Supreme Court in Hope v. Hamilton County, 17 Pickle, 325; Madison County v. Alexander, 8 Cates, 687 ; City of Knoxville v. Christenberry, 147 Tenn., 286 .

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Rowell v. Dutton

    688 S.W.2d 474 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Jan 9, 1985

    Adams v. Russell, 179 Tenn. 428 , 167 S.W.2d 5, 6 (1942). . [3-6] The power of the Governor to pardon, after conviction, is constitutional power. Article 3, § 6, Tennessee Constitution. … Bedford v. McCorkle, 163 Tenn. 101 , 40 S.W.2d 1015, 1016 (1931). The power resides in the Governor and can be exercised without reference to the Board of Paroles or anyone else. Smith v.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Ballentine v. Mayor of Pulaski

    83 Tenn. 633 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1885

    Marr v. Enloe, 1 Yer., 454 ; Keesee v. District Board, 6 Cold., 127 ; Waterhouse v. Board, etc., 8 Heis., 857; Lipscomb v. Dean, 1 Lea, 546 . … Read, 13 Grat., 78; Kuhn v. Board of Education, 4 West Virginia, 499; State v. Sickles, 24 New Jersey, 135; Marks v. University, 37 Indiana, 155; Vanover v. Justices, 27 Georgia, 354.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Coe v. Bogart

    377 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 3, 1974

    The right of plaintiff to a due process hearing before a transfer is governed in this instance by Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Perry v. … State v. Yoakum, 201 Tenn. 180 , 297 S.W.2d 635 ; State ex rel. Taylor v. Rasnake, 209 Tenn. 229 , 352 S.W.2d 427 ; Blair et al v. Mayo, et al., 224 Tenn. 108 , 450 S.W.2d 582 . In State ex rel. Pemberton v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Barr

    373 F. Supp. 740 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 12, 1973

    Board of Regents v. Roth, supra; Perry v. Sindermann, supra; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Slochower v. … (Board of Regents v. Roth, supra; Perry v. Sindermann, supra ; Orr v. Thorpe, 427 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1970); Bennett v. Gravelle, 323 F.Supp. 203 (D.Md.1971)).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • King, Joshua v. Compass Heating and Air, Inc.

    2016 TN WC App. 64 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Nov 22, 2016

    TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Joshua T. … Davidson, III, delivered the opinion of the Appeals Board in which Judge David F. Hensley and Judge Timothy W. Conner joined.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State of Tennessee v. Eric Ricardo Middleton

    Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 14, 2011

    He noted that he was certified by the American Board of Forensic Pathology, but that board was not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. Dr. … State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 431-32 (Tenn. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Whether the defendant “knowingly” killed the victim is a question of fact for the jury. See State v. Inlow, 52 S.W.3d 101, 104-05 (Tenn.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State of Tennessee v. Gregory L. Allen a/k/a Michael Taylor

    Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · Nov 30, 2016

    Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2010). … Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 430 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting Morris v. Grusin, No. W2009-00033-COA-R3- CV, 2009 WL 4931324, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Stout v. Whiteaker

    379 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 28, 1974

    On the basis of the recent Supreme Court holdings in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed,2d 548 (1972) and Perry v. … Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 573 .

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Headley, Harry v. Roadstar, LLC

    2024 TN WC 60 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Aug 22, 2024

    However, in Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Community Club, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 32, at *16 (May 18, 2017), the Appeals Board reversed the trial court’s order to authorize a panel. … LEXIS 53, at *10 (Sept. 12, 2017), the Board held the employer must submit a new panel if the original authorized doctor refused to treat the employee. In Baker v. Electrolux, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Boyd v. Tennessee State University

    848 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Mar 24, 1994

    See Kompara v. Board of Regents of the State Univ., 548 F.Supp. 587, 542 (M.D.Tenn.1982) (determining immunity from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ). … From the scant facts of the opinion, it appears that the utilities board' is not an entity to which sovereign immunily may possibly apply. See also Eason v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.