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 2012–2022 1 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 v. LWgreen2 sentences2012“Because Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-9-102 requires the aggrieved party to file ‘a petition of certiorari,’ the party seeking review of a board’s decision must also comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-8-106.” Schaffer v. State Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2010-01805-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2120169 , at *2; 2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 284 , at *5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2011). -4- Courts have interpreted Section 27-8-106 to require a petition for a writ of certiorari to satisfy both “a verification requirement (that the petition be ‘sworn to’) and a recitation requirement (that the petition ‘stat 2012Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-8-106 requires that a petition for writ of certiorari satisfy both "a verification requirement (that the petition be ‘sworn to') and a recitation requirement (that the petition 'state that it is the first application for the writ’).” State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tenn.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Blair v. Tennessee Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2016See Blair, 246 S.W.3d at 40-41 . 2014Id. 5 In Blair, 246 S.W.3d at 41 , for example, a petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition for certiorari seeking to submit an amended petition that complied with the verification requirement discussed above. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Waltongreen1 sentence2022In evaluating Instruction Errors under the plain error standard, the Appeals Court shall conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.” The Defendant cites State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75,81 (Tenn. 2001), which is a case in which our supreme court stated that we review de novo a trial court’s application of the law to the facts in a motion to suppress. | 1 | 1 |
Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2012There is a significant difference between expanding the court’s jurisdictional authority to issue a writ of certiorari beyond that granted by the Constitution of Tennessee and allowing waiver of a failure to adhere to a court-imposed rule. -6- See Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 168 Tenn. at 206 , 76 S.W.2d at 645 (noting that while a court could not allow an amendment to permit an untimely verification of a petition for writ of certiorari, it could waive its own rule). 2012There is a significant difference between expanding the court’s jurisdictional authority to issue a writ of certiorari beyond that granted by the Constitution of Tennessee and allowing waiver of a failure to adhere to a court-imposed rule. -6- See Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 168 Tenn. at 206 , 76 S.W.2d at 645 (noting that while a court could not allow an amendment to permit an untimely verification of a petition for writ of certiorari, it could waive its own rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mark D. Talley v. Board of Professional Responsibility
green
1 sentence2014Id. 5 In Blair, 246 S.W.3d at 41 , for example, a petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition for certiorari seeking to submit an amended petition that complied with the verification requirement discussed above. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.