AGENDA 

FACULTY BIOS

JOIN WEBINAR (Begins at 12:30 p.m. CST; Password: bootcamp)

ATTENDANCE FORM

PROGRAM EVALUATION


COURSE MATERIAL


State v. Michael Rimmer

A Shelby County jury convicted Rimmer for the 1997 first-degree murder of his former girlfriend, Ricci Ellsworth, and sentenced him to death. He was later granted post-conviction relief in the form of a new trial. A jury again convicted him of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. He appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The case is now before the Tennessee Supreme Court on automatic review. The Court noted in an order that, at oral argument, it is particularly interested in its mandatory proportionality review, a Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b) issue regarding the defendant’s prior assaults and rape of the victim as well as his attempts to escape from custody, whether his felony murder conviction violates double jeopardy, and whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress DNA evidence under State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999).

Brief of the AppellantBrief of the Appellant SupplementAmnesty International Amicus

Amnesty International Memorandum

Brief of the StateBrief of the State Supplement

LIVESTREAM ARGUMENT

 

Milan Supply Chain Solutions Inc. v. Navistar Inc. et al.

Milan Supply Chain Solutions Inc. sued Navistar Inc. regarding the purchase of allegedly defective trucks. Milan raised numerous legal claims, including breach of contract, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and fraud. Following the pre-trial dismissal of several claims, the remaining fraud and consumer protection claims went to a jury, which awarded Milan compensatory and punitive damages. Navistar appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Among the reasons for reversal, the intermediate court held that Tennessee’s economic loss doctrine barred the fraud claim. Milan filed an application for permission to appeal, which the Tennessee Supreme Court granted.

Brief of the AppellantBrief of the AppelleeAppellant Reply

LIVESTREAM ARGUMENT