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 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richard Joseph, Petitioner-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ralph Coyle, Warden, Respondent-Appellee/cross-Appellantgreen1 sentence2024United States v. Todd, 825 F. App’x 313 , 319 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Joseph v. Coyle, 469 F.3d 441, 472 (6th Cir. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Hendersongreen1 sentence2009In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn.2003). 2 (...continued) direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claim s or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. -5- It is undisputed that neither the May 30, 2007 order granting partial summary judgment to the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Peter F. Ingraldi
green
1 sentence2024Only when a delayed disclosure “prevents material exculpatory evidence from effectively being used at trial is there a due process violation.” Id. 38 Instead, Mr. Thomas’ brief pivots to an attack on Mr. Hawkins’ credibility and attempts to re- litigate issues decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals which we specifically declined to grant review of in our order granting the Rule 11 Application on a limited basis. - 32 - Counsel for Mr. Thomas admitted at oral argument that Mr. Thomas was charged under the “criminal responsibility” theory. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2017Rather, the point is that the jury was never allowed to hear from the witness.” The court later discussed whether the jury would have accepted Mr. Thomas’ claim that the petitioner did not know a shooting was going to occur and stated “there is no way to know.” These statements do not support a finding of prejudice because the appropriate standard for determining prejudice is whether there is “a reasonable probability . . . that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State Ex Rel. Commissioner of the Department of Transportation v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Thomas I, 336 S.W.3d at 607 (citing Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 54-21-107(a)(1) and (2), outlining exceptions for “advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located,” or “advertising the sale or lease of property on which they are located.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Garrison v. State
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.