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 1997–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Methodist Hospitals of Memphis v. Assessment Appeals Commissiongreen2 sentences2003Methodist Hospitals of Memphis v. Assessment Appeals Commission, 669 S.W.2d 305 at 307 (Tenn. 1984).” The ALJ then stated as follows: With the notable exception of parsonages, property of a religious institution that is used principally as a residence has generally not been approved for exemption – regardless of whether the owner receives income from such property. 1 Thus, as counsel for the Church has acknowledged, the Assessment Appeals Commission … has historically declined to exempt church-owned residences for missionaries on furlough. 2003Methodist Hospitals of Memphis v. Assessment Appeals Commission, 669 S.W.2d 305 at 307 (Tenn.1984).” The ALJ then stated as follows: With the notable exception of parsonages, property of a religious institution that is used principally as a residence has generally not been approved for exemption — regardless of whether the owner receives income from such property. 1 Thus, as counsel for the Church has acknowledged, the Assessment Appeals Commission ... has historically declined to exempt church-owned residences for missionaries on furlough. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Huddlestongreen1 sentence2013See State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 671 (Tenn. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clevelandgreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 106 F.3d 1056, 1062 (1st Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, (Apr. 30, 1 997); United States v. Barrera-Gonzales, 952 F.2d 1269, 1272 (10th C ir. 1992); Unite d Sta tes v. Bus tillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986);. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Alvin R. Bustillogreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 106 F.3d 1056, 1062 (1st Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, (Apr. 30, 1 997); United States v. Barrera-Gonzales, 952 F.2d 1269, 1272 (10th C ir. 1992); Unite d Sta tes v. Bus tillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986);. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carlos Barrera-Gonzales, Also Known as Oscar Barrera-Gonzalesgreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 106 F.3d 1056, 1062 (1st Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, (Apr. 30, 1 997); United States v. Barrera-Gonzales, 952 F.2d 1269, 1272 (10th C ir. 1992); Unite d Sta tes v. Bus tillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986);. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Conley, Jr.green1 sentence1997Moreover, the questioned language "based upon reason and common sense" 13 The most notable exception between the Tennessee Pattern Instruction and those emp loyed by the fe deral cou rt is the Te nness ee instruc tion's om ission of th e langua ge "hes itate to act." Althou gh the S uprem e Cou rt has indic ated a pr eferen ce for the se term s, see Holland, 348 U.S. at 12 6, 75 S.C t. at 130; accord United States v. Conley, 523 F.2d 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 , 96 S.Ct. 1125 (1976) (reasonable doubt instruction must be couched in terms of hesitation to act), om issio | 1 | 1 |
Kienlen v. Wardengreen2 sentences1997Moreover, the questioned language "based upon reason and common sense" 13 The most notable exception between the Tennessee Pattern Instruction and those emp loyed by the fe deral cou rt is the Te nness ee instruc tion's om ission of th e langua ge "hes itate to act." Althou gh the S uprem e Cou rt has indic ated a pr eferen ce for the se term s, see Holland, 348 U.S. at 12 6, 75 S.C t. at 130; accord United States v. Conley, 523 F.2d 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 , 96 S.Ct. 1125 (1976) (reasonable doubt instruction must be couched in terms of hesitation to act), om issio 1997Moreover, the questioned language "based upon reason and common sense" 13 The most notable exception between the Tennessee Pattern Instruction and those emp loyed by the fe deral cou rt is the Te nness ee instruc tion's om ission of th e langua ge "hes itate to act." Althou gh the S uprem e Cou rt has indic ated a pr eferen ce for the se term s, see Holland, 348 U.S. at 12 6, 75 S.C t. at 130; accord United States v. Conley, 523 F.2d 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 , 96 S.Ct. 1125 (1976) (reasonable doubt instruction must be couched in terms of hesitation to act), om issio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Holland v. United States
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the questioned language "based upon reason and common sense" 13 The most notable exception between the Tennessee Pattern Instruction and those emp loyed by the fe deral cou rt is the Te nness ee instruc tion's om ission of th e langua ge "hes itate to act." Althou gh the S uprem e Cou rt has indic ated a pr eferen ce for the se term s, see Holland, 348 U.S. at 12 6, 75 S.C t. at 130; accord United States v. Conley, 523 F.2d 650, 655 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 920 , 96 S.Ct. 1125 (1976) (reasonable doubt instruction must be couched in terms of hesitation to act), om issio | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.