Skip to main content
· 3/31/2020

State of Tennessee v. Jay Hathaway

Syllabus

The Defendant, Jay Hathaway, appeals the probation revocation order from a February 25, 2019 probation violation hearing. The trial court determined that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation sentence, applied eighty-five days of time served toward the revocation sentence, and ordered an additional sixty days to serve in jail before the Defendant would be reinstated to a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that he was denied due process because he was not provided an expert on the issue of drug patch testing. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “[u]njust enrichment and quantum meruit are related doctrines” and reversing summary judgment that dismissed a contractor’s unjust enrichment and quantum meruit 24 claims
  • extrinsic evidence cannot be used to vary or modify the written words of the contract
  • unjust enrichment is legal remedy in form of restitution
  • unjust enrichment is legal remedy in form of restitution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.