Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bowe v. United States: 24-5438: January 17, 2025: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman: 23-1259: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. October 4, 2024 (March 3, 2025) Bufkin v. McDonough: 23-713
Two Memphis advocacy groups, Stand for Children Tennessee and the Official Black Lives Matter Memphis Chapter, have filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against a Tennessee bail law that ...
Pages in category "Tennessee state case law" The following 4 pages are in this category, out of 4 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. H. Houston v. State
The case of DeLaney v. Thompson challenged the statute once more in 1998. The plaintiffs argued that the process was not an "election" in the sense envisioned by the authors of the state constitution and that the court in Higgins v. Dunn had been incompetent to render a decision because of its interest in the outcome of the case. DeLaney v.
Today flexible plastics such as PVC are often used. Galoshes are overshoes, and not to be confused with the form of large slip-on rubber boots (known in the United Kingdom as Wellington boots). A protective layer (made variously of leather, rubber, or synthetic ripstop material) that only wraps around a shoe's upper is known as a spat or gaiter.
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001), was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that there is no due process violation for lack of fair warning when pre-existing common law limitations on what acts constitute a crime, under a more broadly worded statutory criminal law, are broadened to include additional acts, even when there is no notice to the defendant that the court might undo the common ...
Both seemed to be true back in 2021 when a simple — and perhaps "silly" — debate was started between the Tennessee and Texas fan bases on which school would be the "UT" of the SEC once the ...
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. 504 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violated the Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause) and was not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment.