Supreme Court Opinions

Format: 10/25/2014
Format: 10/25/2014
State vs. Chad Douglas Poole
02S01-9607-CC-00064
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/12/97
Krick vs. City of Lawrenceburg
01S01-9511-CV-00220
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Lawrence County Supreme Court 05/12/97
Bush vs. State
03S01-9604-CC-00047
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Cumberland County Supreme Court 04/28/97
03S01-9610-CV-00106
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 04/28/97
Moore vs. State
03S01-9607-CR-00073
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 04/28/97
State vs. Barry L. Speck
02S01-9601-CR-00001
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: L. Terry Lafferty
Supreme Court 04/28/97
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
01S01-9505-CR-00080
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 04/28/97
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
01S01-9505-CR-00080
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Supreme Court 04/28/97
State vs. Henry Eugene Hodges
01S01-9505-CR-00080
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Davidson County Supreme Court 04/28/97
Lawson vs. Lear
03S01-9509-CV-00105
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 04/21/97
Terry L. Hicks vs. State
02S01-9607-CC-00063
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Madison County Supreme Court 04/21/97
Maxine O. Mason v. Kenneth M. Seaton and Wife, Laurel Seaton, D/B/A Grand Hotel
03S01-9606-CV-00061
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of PPeals, reversing the trial court, that the action of retaliatory discharge "for refusing to remain silent about illegal activities" does not require a showing that the employer expressly or implicitly directed the employee to remain silent about the illegal activitey. This Court affirms the decision and ratoinale of the Court of Appeals.

Sevier County Supreme Court 04/07/97
Joe C. Meighan, Jr., for himself and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. Sprint Communications Company
03S01-9502-CV-00014
Authoring Judge: Justice Lyle Reid
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

The case is before the Court on a petition for writ of mandamus. This is one of three cases1 in which landowners have filed suit against U.S. Sprint Communications Company (Sprint), asserting claims for inverse condemnation and trespass and seeking certification as a class action. Buhl v. Sprint and the instant case, Meighan, have been before this Court on appeal.2 The relief sought is an order directing the trial court in McCumber v. Sprint to vacate its order certifying a class action and to defer to the trial court in this case on that issue. The Court, heretofore, entered an order staying the proceedings in all three cases pending this hearing.

Supreme Court 04/07/97