due process balancing analysis (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

due process balancing analysis in Tennessee

5 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2010 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Sample v. Stategreen
tenn · 2002 · cited in 3 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2010
2 sentences

2010Id. at 273 n.8.

2010Id. at 273 n. 8.

13
Workman v. Stategreen
tenn · 2001 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Turning to the merits of the case, I would hold that the due process balancing analysis under Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn.2001), may toll the one-year writ of error coram nobis statute of limitations where the prosecution has suppressed exculpatory evidence in a non-capital proceeding.

2003Accordingly, I would address the merits of this case and would hold that the due process balancing analysis under Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn.2001), may toll the one-year writ of error coram nobis statute of limitations where the prosecution has suppressed exculpatory evidence in a non-capital case.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Burford v. State green
tenn · 1992
2 sentences

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

22002–2002
Williams v. State green
tenn · 2001
2 sentences

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

22002–2002
John Paul Seals v. State of Tennessee green
tenn · 2000
2 sentences

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

2002In concluding that consideration of Workman's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not foreclosed by the statute of limitations, the majority meticulously applied the due process balancing test outlined in Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn.1992), Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn.2000), and Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn.2001).

22002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CT 10 (1996–2025) NM 8 (2001–2014) WA 6 (2010–2021) TN 5 (2002–2010) KS 3 (1998–2024) UT 3 (2016–2016) FL 3 (2002–2018) NV 2 (2016–2016) MI 2 (1987–2013) MT 2 (1998–2000) OK 2 (2016–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check