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 3 courts 1991–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. Christine Caudlegreen2 sentences2014Our supreme court has concluded that the abuse of discretion with a presumption of correctness standard in Bise applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). 2013Our supreme court has concluded that the abuse of discretion with a presumption of correctness standard in Bise applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hoopergreen2 sentences2014When determining if incarceration is appropriate, a trial court should consider if: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or -9- (C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.] T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2010); see also State v. Hooper, 29 S 2013When determining if incarceration is appropriate, a trial court should consider if: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or (C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.] T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1) (2010); see also State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 5 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2000See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40 — 35—401(d); State v. Gutierrez, 5 S.W.3d 641, 646 (Tenn.1999) (applying a presumption of correctness standard to one sentencing determination after concluding that the trial court erred in another). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Beelergreen2 sentences1991The court held that the change in the rules of appellate review of sentencing falls into none of the forbidden categories found in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), and adopted in Davis v. Beeler, 185 Tenn. 638 , 207 S.W.2d 343, 349 (1947). 1991The court held that the change in the rules of appellate review of sentencing falls into none of the forbidden categories found in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), and adopted in Davis v. Beeler, 185 Tenn. 638 , 207 S.W.2d 343, 349 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Trans Aero Corp.
green
1 sentence2000Taylor v. Trans Aero Corp., 924 S.W.2d 109 , (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Weaver v. Nelms, 750 S.W.2d 158 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Realty Shop Inc. v. RR Westminister Holding, 7 S.W.3rd 581, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Weaver v. Nelms
green
1 sentence2000Taylor v. Trans Aero Corp., 924 S.W.2d 109 , (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Weaver v. Nelms, 750 S.W.2d 158 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987); Realty Shop Inc. v. RR Westminister Holding, 7 S.W.3rd 581, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Calder v. Bull
green
1 sentence1991The court held that the change in the rules of appellate review of sentencing falls into none of the forbidden categories found in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), and adopted in Davis v. Beeler, 185 Tenn. 638 , 207 S.W.2d 343, 349 (1947). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.