recitation requirement (Tennessee) · Go Syfert
← Tennessee issues

recitation requirement in Tennessee

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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. LWgreen
tenn · 2011 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012“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).

22
Blair v. Tennessee Board of Probation & Parolegreen
tennctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2014–2016
2 sentences

2016See 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.

12
State v. Waltongreen
tenn · 2001 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022In 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.

11
Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smithgreen
· 1934 · cited in 1 Tennessee opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

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).

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).

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
Mark D. Talley v. Board of Professional Responsibility green
tenn · 2011
1 sentence

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.

12014–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-106 (4) TN § Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102 (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

TX 16 (1993–2023) PA 12 (1969–2023) OH 8 (1993–2024) IL 6 (1975–2025) GA 5 (2008–2025) MI 5 (1999–2025) KY 5 (1952–2006) TN 5 (2012–2022) NJ 4 (1993–2021) FL 3 (2000–2003) LA 3 (1991–2007) MD 2 (2008–2011) AL 2 (1985–2013) CO 2 (2011–2017) AK 2 (2006–2025) MO 2 (1991–2005) ID 2 (2013–2013) ME 2 (2011–2022) KS 2 (2006–2024)

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