5 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2019 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 v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2019See Williams, 977 S.W.2d at 105 ; see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986) (applying harmless error to the defendant’s absence during unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instructions on element of malice). 2015“Generally, in modern jurisprudence application of the harmless error doctrine is the rule rather than the exception.” See State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tenn. 1998). | 4 | 4 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2019See Williams, 977 S.W.2d at 105 ; see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986) (applying harmless error to the defendant’s absence during unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instructions on element of malice). 2000See Williams, 977 S.W.2d at 105 ; see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106-07 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Howellgreen1 sentence2015“The harmless error doctrine is an embodiment of the fundamental premise that „the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.‟” State v. Momon, 18 S.W.3d 152, 165 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 253 (Tenn. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Momon v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“The harmless error doctrine is an embodiment of the fundamental premise that „the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.‟” State v. Momon, 18 S.W.3d 152, 165 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 253 (Tenn. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Shutze v. Credithrift of America, Inc.green1 sentence2006In Mississippi, in a deficiency proceeding, the mortgagee “must give the debtor fair credit for the commercially reasonable value of the collateral.” Shutze v. Credithrift of America, 607 So.2d 55, 65 (Miss.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.