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 2004–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carruthers v. Stategreen1 sentence2026There are two categories for challenges to a juror’s qualifications: propter defectum, which is “on account of defect,” or propter affectum, which is “on account of prejudice.” Carruthers v. State, 145 S.W.3d 85, 94 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (citing State v. Akins, 867 S.W.2d 350, 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Akinsgreen1 sentence2026There are two categories for challenges to a juror’s qualifications: propter defectum, which is “on account of defect,” or propter affectum, which is “on account of prejudice.” Carruthers v. State, 145 S.W.3d 85, 94 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (citing State v. Akins, 867 S.W.2d 350, 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2025Most of the time a motion to reopen “contemplates a summary proceeding in which the trial court can readily determine whether or not one of the three very narrow grounds for reopening exists.” Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 592 (Tenn. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 828 (Tenn. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Ricky Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Most of the time a motion to reopen “contemplates a summary proceeding in which the trial court can readily determine whether or not one of the three very narrow grounds for reopening exists.” Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 592 (Tenn. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Nunley v. State, 552 S.W.3d 800, 828 (Tenn. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Windsor Card Shops, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.green1 sentence2004See also Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the plaintiffs would not be allowed to amend their complaint a second time because they knew of the facts underlying the claim before the action was filed); Windsor Card Shops, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 957 F.Supp. 562, 571 (D.N.J.1997) (denying the plaintiffs motion to amend because the plaintiff could have included the claim in its original complaint but did not do so for strategic reasons). | 1 | 1 |
Wimm v. Eckerd Corp.green1 sentence2004See also Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the plaintiffs would not be allowed to amend their complaint a second time because they knew of the facts underlying the claim before the action was filed); Windsor Card Shops, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 957 F.Supp. 562, 571 (D.N.J.1997) (denying the plaintiffs motion to amend because the plaintiff could have included the claim in its original complaint but did not do so for strategic reasons). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATE of Tennessee v. Phedrek T. DAVIS
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 905 . -4- (3) The claim asserted in the motion seeks relief from a sentence that was enhanced because of a previous conviction and the conviction in the case in which the claim is asserted was not a guilty plea with an agreed sentence, and the previous conviction has subsequently been held to be invalid, in which case the motion must be filed within one (1) year of the finality of the ruling holding the previous conviction to be invalid; and (4) It appears that the facts underlying the claim, if true, would establish by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is entitled to ha | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Harkins
green
1 sentence2015Harkins, 811 S.W.2d at 82 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.