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 2 courts 1995–2015 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. Gerdesgreen2 sentences2015Ct. 1981); State v. Gerdes, 258 N.W.2d 839, 843 (S.D. 1977). -14- The Petitioner has not cited to any authority applying this narrow unavailability exception based upon a change in the law. ―Issues regarding whether a change in the law should apply post-trial related to retroactivity and are more properly addressed in post- conviction proceedings or a motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.‖ Vincent Sims v. State, No. W2014-00166-CCA-R3-PD, 2014 WL 7334202 , at *10 (Tenn. Crim. 2014Ct. 1981); State v. Gerdes, 258 N.W.2d 839, 843 (S.D. 1977). -19- The petitioner has failed to cite to any authority applying this narrow unavailability exception based upon a change in the law. | 2 | 2 |
Moorehead v. Stategreen1 sentence2012The State contends that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s third motion to continue made less than two weeks before the trial date. “[T]he granting or denying of a continuance is a matter which addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Moorehead v. State, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Bass v. State, 231 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. 1950)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2000Ed. 2d 848 (1992); see also State v. Kennedy, 7 S.W.3d 58, 65 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bass v. State
green
1 sentence2012The State contends that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s third motion to continue made less than two weeks before the trial date. “[T]he granting or denying of a continuance is a matter which addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Moorehead v. State, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Bass v. State, 231 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. 1950)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2000The Court later modified the unavailability requirement in White v. Illinois,: "[U]navailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding . . . ." 502 U.S. 346, 354-55 , 112 S. Ct. 736 , 116 L. 2000The Court later modified the unavailability requirement in White v. Illinois,: "[U]navailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding . . . ." 502 U.S. 346, 354-55 , 112 S. Ct. 736 , 116 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis v. Markowitz
green
1 sentence1995They cite Markowitz, 468 F.Supp. at 533 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.