Hale v. State, 548 S.W.2d 878 (Tenn. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Hale v. State, 548 S.W.2d 878 (Tenn. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 · …the owners of property which is producing the unnatural amount of surface water at p. 882 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1994 · …the right of action, if any, for plaintiffs' injuries is directly against those who caused the problem, i.e., the owners of property which is producing the unnatural amount of surface water. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1978 · …the usual rules of evidence are applicable to preliminary hearings at p. 878 ✓
24 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Sewer Commission
Conn. · 2004 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there is no authority for compelling a city to construct an artificial drainage sewer; and it would be a radical, dangerous and undemocratic precedent for the courts to undertake to enter into municipal legislation and administration in any such respect
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Riverland, LLC v. City of Jackson, Tennessee
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
no right of action is recognized against a municipality for issuing a permit for construction in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
examined Cited as authority (rule) 1704 Farmington, LLC v. City of Memphis, Tennessee (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The court noted that the county did not cause or contribute to the water runoff and stated that “where property owners are damaged by natural water runoff created by private individuals or entities, their recourse is against those creating the runoff – not against the county or municipality.” Britton, 898 S.W.2d at 223 -24 (citing Miller, 548 S.W.2d at 883).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Waugh v. State
Tenn. · 1978 · confidence medium
The statement in Hale that “the usual rules of evidence are applicable to preliminary hearings” is ipsi dixit. 548 S.W.2d at 878.
discussed Cited "see" 1704 FARMINGTON, LLC v. City of Memphis
W.D. Tenn. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller, 548 S.W.2d at 883 ("there is no authority for compelling a city to construct an artificial drainage sewer”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Albert William HALE
v.
STATE of Tennessee
Tennessee Supreme Court.
Apr 6, 1977.
548 S.W.2d 878
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Tennessee (1)

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PER CURIAM.

We sustain the motion of the State to dismiss the petition for mootness.

This action, however, is not to be construed as our approval of the procedure followed at the Preliminary Hearing in this case.

Chapter 11, Title 40, Tennessee Code Annotated, has its basic derivation in the Official Code of 1858. Its provisions are clear. The procedure is mandatory. We have held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage in the prosecution of a criminal action, and have recognized that it is mandated by statute. McKeldin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 82 (Tenn.1974).

We further held in McKeldin that a preliminary hearing is a “pretrial type of arraignment where certain rights may be sacrificed or lost”, 516 S.W.2d at 85, and by quotation from Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970), we recognized that it is an adversary proceeding and stressed the value of cross-examination. The usual rules of evidence are applicable to preliminary hearings.

In the context of this case, the matter is now moot. Counsel could have protected his client’s right to a proper preliminary hearing by filing a petition for common law certiorari and supersedeas with one of the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and, if necessary, with a member of this Court.

Let the petition be dismissed.