Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Byron Black v. Ricky Bellgreen2 sentences2014See Black v. Bell, 664 F.3d 81, 92 (6th Cir. 2012) (vacating district court’s denial of Atkins claim and remanding for reconsideration in light of retrospective application of Coleman); Van Tran v. Colson, 764 F.3d 594, 617-619 (6th Cir. 2014) (applying Coleman retroactively to Atkins claim and granting a writ of habeas corpus prohibiting imposition of the death penalty, conditioned upon the fresh determination by the Tennessee courts whether the petitioner was intellectually disabled under the clarified principles set out in Coleman). 2012The majority characterized Coleman's holding as an “elucidation of the Atkins standard under Tennessee law.” Black v. Bell, 664 F.3d 81, 92, 96, 101 (6th Cir.2011) (remanding Black’s intellectual disability claim to the U.S. District Court for reconsideration in light of Coleman). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsred2 sentences2010Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”)); State v. Williams, 831 So. 2d 835, 859 (La. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Turner, 936 So. 2d 89 (La. 2006) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental re 2006Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”); State v. Williams, 831 So.2d 835, 859 (La. 2002) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental retardation to the experts.”). | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Bluegreen1 sentence2016See Ex parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151, 163 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (permitting consideration of otherwise procedurally barred Atkins claim if applicant could make “threshold showing” of evidence that would be “at least sufficient to support an ultimate conclusion, by clear and convincing evidence, that no rational factfinder would fail to find mental retardation”). | 1 | 1 |
Heck Van Tran v. Roland Colsongreen1 sentence2014See Black v. Bell, 664 F.3d 81, 92 (6th Cir. 2012) (vacating district court’s denial of Atkins claim and remanding for reconsideration in light of retrospective application of Coleman); Van Tran v. Colson, 764 F.3d 594, 617-619 (6th Cir. 2014) (applying Coleman retroactively to Atkins claim and granting a writ of habeas corpus prohibiting imposition of the death penalty, conditioned upon the fresh determination by the Tennessee courts whether the petitioner was intellectually disabled under the clarified principles set out in Coleman). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kansas v. Crane
green
2 sentences2010Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”)); State v. Williams, 831 So. 2d 835, 859 (La. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Turner, 936 So. 2d 89 (La. 2006) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental re 2010Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”)); State v. Williams, 831 So. 2d 835, 859 (La. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Turner, 936 So. 2d 89 (La. 2006) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental re | 2 | 2006–2010 |
Ex Parte Briseno
green
2 sentences2010Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”)); State v. Williams, 831 So. 2d 835, 859 (La. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Turner, 936 So. 2d 89 (La. 2006) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental re 2006Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”); State v. Williams, 831 So.2d 835, 859 (La. 2002) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental retardation to the experts.”). | 2 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence2010Ex parte Jose Garcia Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 1 (citing Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 , 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) (noting that “the science of psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations, is an ever-advancing science, whose distinctions do not seek precisely to mirror those of the law”)); State v. Williams, 831 So. 2d 835, 859 (La. 2002), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Turner, 936 So. 2d 89 (La. 2006) (in determining Atkins claim, “the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental re | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
1 sentence2010As recognized by the United States Supreme Court, “[n]ot all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.