Cases

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff A & M Gerber Chiropractic LLC's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. [59] ("Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment"), Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's ("GEICO") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [80] ("GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment"), and GEICO's Motion to Disqualify Class Representat

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 14, 2006 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES O. MCCARSON, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Humphreys County No. 10701 Robert Burch, Judge No. M2005-01094-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 24, 2006 The Defendant, James O. McCarson, Jr., was convicted of one count o

226 S.W.3d 287 (2007) STATE of Tennessee v. Arthur T. COPELAND. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville. January 3, 2007 Session. May 23, 2007. *289 Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Alice B. Lustre, Assistant Attorney General; Michael L. Flynn, District Attorney General; and K

Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court. Applicants/Appellees Independent Shareholders Group, LLC and others (collectively, "ISG") appeal the water court's dismissal of their application for a change of water rights. ISG's change application pertains to Fort Lyon Canal Company water shares. This appeal raises the same primary legal question we address in the companion case, High Plains A & M, LLC

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 831–941 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

655 F.Supp. 939 (1987) Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. George C. WALLACE, Governor of Alabama, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. 82-0544-BH, 82-0792-BH. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, S.D. March 4, 1987. As Corrected Marc