188 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1921–2026 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hogan v. Millsgreen2 sentences2026However, when a “habeas corpus petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). 2025When a “habeas petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Id. at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). | 52 | 55 |
Hickman v. Stategreen2 sentences2026A habeas corpus court may summarily dismiss a petition without a hearing when the petition “fails to demonstrate that the judgment is void.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 . 2025A habeas corpus court may summarily dismiss a petition without a hearing when the petition “fails to demonstrate that the judgment is void.” Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tenn. 2004); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-109 . | 43 | 45 |
McLaney v. Bellgreen2 sentences2018Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . 2017More importantly, though, habeas corpus relief is available only to persons who are “imprisoned or restrained of liberty.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 (a). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . | 28 | 52 |
Archer v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . 2005Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . | 18 | 22 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . 2017Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). “[W]here the allegations in a petition for writ of habeas corpus do not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may correctly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” McLaney, 59 S.W.3d at 93 . “[T]he validity of an indictment and the efficacy of the resulting conviction may be addressed in a petition for habeas corpus when the indictment is so defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.” Dykes v. Compton, 978 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tenn.1998). | 14 | 17 |
Summers v. Stategreen2 sentences2026However, when a “habeas corpus petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). 2022However, when a “habeas corpus petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial -3- court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). | 5 | 56 |
Dixon v. Hollandgreen2 sentences2003“When the petition for writ of habeas corpus does not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may properly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Dixon v. Holland, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002). 2002“When the petition for writ of habeas corpus does not demonstrate that the judgment is void, a trial court may properly dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Dixon v. Holland, 70 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tenn. 2002). | 4 | 5 |
Dykes v. Comptongreen2 sentences2025When a “habeas petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Id. at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). 2022When a “habeas petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Id. at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). | 2 | 4 |
Blair v. Stategreen2 sentences2018In Blair v. State, the petitioner alleged various grounds for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing or appointment of counsel, concluding that the issues were waived, previously determined, or did not assert a ground for relief as a matter of law. 969 S.W.2d 423, 423-24 (Tenn. Crim. 2004See Blair v. State, 969 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hughes v. Tom Green Cnty.green1 sentence2020Id. § 1.01; see also Elseroad v. Cook, 553 S.W.3d 1 After filing his petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal, Mr. Burgess filed “Plaintiff/Appellant’s Additional Addenda.” The Additional Addenda claims that the trial judge made his comment at the September 18, 2020 hearing because counsel for Bradford Hills was one of the trial judge’s former clerks. 3 460, 466-67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (recognizing lack of affidavit “provides a basis to deny the petition without a hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gabriongreen1 sentence2015It is “commonly understood” that the applicable authorizing statutes establishing national forests allow “concurrent jurisdiction over the national forests.” United States v. -2- Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839, 855 (6th Cir. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). -2- Furthermore, when a “habeas corpus petition fails to establish that a judgment is void, a trial court may dismiss the petition without a hearing.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 260 (citing Hogan v. Mills, 168 S.W.3d 753, 755 (Tenn. 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Newsome v. Stategreen1 sentence2012This court affirmed the dismissal of the petition without a hearing, concluding that (1) the petition was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) there was no due process basis for tolling the statute of limitations; (3) the petition did not show any basis for relief because it did not allege that the “newly discovered” evidence would establish that the petitioner’s pleas were not knowing and voluntary, see Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129, 134 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Livingstongreen1 sentence2012State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2006); Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Stategreen1 sentence2012State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2006); Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tenn. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Stephenson v. Carltongreen1 sentence2007See Stephenson, 28 S.W.3d at 911 (stating that a void sentence, as well as a void conviction, may result in a void judgment and be the subject of a habeas corpus proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackmongreen1 sentence2006It is unlikely that the post-conviction court will be able to dismiss the petition without a hearing even after appointing counsel and allowing time to amend, because we have previously stated that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be -2- raised in post-conviction proceedings because “it ‘is virtually impossible to demonstrate prejudice as required’ without an evidentiary hearing.” State v. Blackmon, 78 S.W.3d 322, 328 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Church v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burnett v. State
green
2 sentences2022The Act contemplates a situation where the post-conviction court dismisses a petition without a hearing even after - 16 - a petition has “survived earlier dismissal.” See Burnett, 92 S.W.3d at 407 (citing T.C.A. § 40-30-209(a) (1997) renumbered to § 40-30-109(a) in 2003). 2003In Burnett, the post-conviction court had dismissed the petition without a hearing and, as in the present case, without appointing counsel, the court concluding “that the petition failed to allege facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to relief.” Id. at 406 . | 3 | 2003–2022 |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2025Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 829 .of the Although the petition was untimely, the coram nobis court addressed the petition on the merits and determined under the first and third prongs for granting coram nobis relief upon the basis of newly discovered recanted testimony that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stuart Elseroad v. Kaitlin Cook
green
1 sentence2022We have generally held that the lack of affidavit or declaration “provides a basis to deny the petition without a hearing.” Elseroad v. Cook, 553 S.W.3d 460 , 466–67 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ferrante
green
1 sentence2016In Ferrante, an indictment charging the defendant was never issued. 269 S.W.3d at 909 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hicks v. State
green
1 sentence2015The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing on October 17, 2014, noting that the plea was proper under Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ricky Harris v. State
green
1 sentence2013Our supreme court has previously cautioned that “[c]oram nobis claims . . . are singularly fact-intensive [allegations that] are not easily resolved on the face of the petition and often require a hearing.” Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587 , 592 -93 (Tenn. 2003). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
1 sentence2011In Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S.270 (2007) the United States Supreme Court, relying upon the principles discussed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), reaffirmed the rule, "rooted in longstanding common-law practice," that the Sixth Amendment prohibits a state's sentencing scheme from allowing a judge to enhance a sentence based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or otherwise admitted by the defendant. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2011The petitioner complains that the State’s submission to the court of “certificates and affidavits” that dealt with ballistics evidence and the petitioner’s mental competency to stand trial, without the testimony of the individuals who prepared those reports, violated his right to confrontation as set forth in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
1 sentence2011In Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S.270 (2007) the United States Supreme Court, relying upon the principles discussed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), reaffirmed the rule, "rooted in longstanding common-law practice," that the Sixth Amendment prohibits a state's sentencing scheme from allowing a judge to enhance a sentence based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or otherwise admitted by the defendant. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Middlebrooks
red
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Cunningham v. California
green
2 sentences2009On April 11, 2008, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the court was “without statutory authority or jurisdiction to render the judgments.” His specific complaint is that, in his view, he “was entitled to receive a sentence of 12 years as a Range II Offender, and was entitled to the presumptive sentence of twelve (12) years for facilitation to commit murder 2nd degree, absent application of either mitigating or enhancement factors.” As we understand, the petitioner believes that, as a result of the holding in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S. Ct. 856 (20 2009On April 11, 2008, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the court was “without statutory authority or jurisdiction to render the judgments.” His specific complaint is that, in his view, he “was entitled to receive a sentence of 12 years as a Range II Offender, and was entitled to the presumptive sentence of twelve (12) years for facilitation to commit murder 2nd degree, absent application of either mitigating or enhancement factors.” As we understand, the petitioner believes that, as a result of the holding in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S. Ct. 856 (20 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Rodgers
green
1 sentence2008Petitioner relies on the case of State of Tennessee v. Rodgers, 235 S.W.3d 92 (Tenn. 2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Burkhart green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Burford v. State green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Democratic Executive Committee v. Dougherty neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.