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.
29 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1932–2026 4 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. Bobogreen2 sentences2011Thus, the more convincing the evidence, the less prejudicial the error.” State v. Bobo, 727 S.W.2d 945, 955-956 (Tenn.1987). 1992“An error is harmless or prejudicial depending on the extent to which the proof in the record exceeds the standard necessary to sustain a jury decision_ Thus, the more convincing the evidence, the less prejudicial the error.” State v. Bobo, 727 S.W.2d 945, 955-56 (Tenn.1987). | 3 | 3 |
Painter v. Toyo Kogyo of Japangreen2 sentences2011See also Painter v. Toyo Kogyo of Japan, 682 S.W.2d 944, 949 (Tenn.App.1984). 1987See also Painter v. Toyo Kogyo of Japan, 682 S.W.2d 944, 949 (Tenn.App.1984). | 2 | 2 |
Evelyn Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.green2 sentences2026We reiterate that when we are “considering whether a trial court committed prejudicial error in a jury instruction, it is our duty to review the charge in its entirety and consider it as a whole, and the instruction will not be invalidated if it ‘fairly defines the legal issues involved in the case and does not mislead the jury.’” Nye, 347 S.W.3d at 699 (quoting Otis v. Cambridge Mut. 2012In addressing “whether a trial court committed prejudicial error in a jury instruction, [we] review the charge in its entirety and consider it as a whole, and the instruction will not be invalidated if it ‘fairly defines the legal issues involved in the case and does not mislead the jury.’” Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 686, 699 (Tenn.2011) (quoting Otis v. Cambridge Mut. | 1 | 2 |
Bell v. Toddgreen2 sentences2021“Accordingly, we vacate[d] the judgment awarding . . . damages against [the defendant] and remand[ed] the case to the trial court with directions to consider and dispose of each of [the defendant’s] motions using the legal standards applicable to each of these motions and to enter an order specifying its reasons for either granting or denying each motion.” Id. (citing Winstead, 23 S.W.3d at 303); see also Richards v. Richards, No. E2014-02123-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 4575536 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (concluding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing the pro se, 2019Id. at *5 (citing Bell v. Todd, 206 S.W.3d 86, 91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)) (internal citations and footnotes omitted); see also Richards v. Richards, No. E2014-02123-COA- R3-CV, 2015 WL 4575536 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (concluding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by dismissing incarcerated husband’s complaint for divorce without first considering husband’s motion to appear via video communication technology); Chastain v. Chastain, No. M2003-02016-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 725277 , at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004) (vacating the portions of the trial court’s final decree | 1 | 2 |
Knight v. Knightgreen1 sentence2024See Richards v. Richards, No. E2014-02123-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 4575536 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (concluding that the trial court committed prejudicial error and -3- vacating the divorce decree when the trial court dismissed an incarcerated husband’s complaint for divorce without first considering his motion to appear via video communication technology); Knight, 11 S.W.3d at 906-07 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (vacating the final divorce decree due to the trial court’s failure to address an incarcerated husband’s pending motion requesting that he be transported to the final hearing or that | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Smithgreen1 sentence2018Trial courts may give special instructions but “need not give a special instruction whose substance is already covered in the general charge.” Mitchell v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 384, 390-91 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Jack M. | 1 | 1 |
Nagarajan v. Terrygreen1 sentence2017Nagarajan v. Terry, 151 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melsongreen1 sentence2012See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303 (1977); State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 261 (Tenn. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Dobbert v. Floridagreen1 sentence2012See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303 (1977); State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 261 (Tenn. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Teelred1 sentence2006Defendants have a “constitutional right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sensinggreen1 sentence2001Asserting that it had already been made clear from Trooper Riggs’s testimony that the twenty-minute observation period, required by State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Tenn. 1992), had not been followed, he argues that the trial court should not have allowed Maines to offer his “extremely prejudicial” testimony. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2000The defendant’s method of waiting in the dark, dressed so as to veil his identity, for a lone, white female to emerge from her car in the 6 In State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387, 396 (Tenn. 1989), defendant’s assertion that the trial court committed prejudicial error by requiring that he appear shackled in court was found to be without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Likewise, in Young v. State, 566 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colegreen1 sentence1996A. (...continued) (Tenn. 1985) (armed robbery conviction admissible to impeach accused in a prosecution for armed robbery); State v. Cole, 665 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bright v. Stategreen2 sentences1958See Bright v. State, 191 Tenn. 249, 258 , 232 S.W. 2d 53 . 1958See Bright v. State, 191 Tenn. 249, 258 , 232 S.W. 2d 53 . | 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 v. Dyle
green
1 sentence2024F. IDENTIFICATION INSTRUCTION The Defendant maintained in his amended motion for a new trial that the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to provide the jury with the enhanced identification instruction set forth in State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995), an opinion that was issued approximately one year before the Defendant’s trial. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brandy Hills Estates, LLC v. Reeves
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Goff v. Elmo Greer & Sons Const. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2011We emphasize “that Tennessee law is clear that a jury charge should be reviewed in its entirety and considered as a whole when determining whether the trial court committed prejudicial error.” Goff, 297 S.W.3d at 196 -97 (citing Otis, 850 S.W.2d at 446 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Otis v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2011We emphasize “that Tennessee law is clear that a jury charge should be reviewed in its entirety and considered as a whole when determining whether the trial court committed prejudicial error.” Goff, 297 S.W.3d at 196 -97 (citing Otis, 850 S.W.2d at 446 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence2009On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by excluding the expert’s testimony under the rule established in State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn.1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Toms v. Toms
green
1 sentence2004Mother relies upon Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003) as support for her argument. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Cook
green
1 sentence2000In State v. Cook, 816 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. 1991), our supreme court considered whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by charging possible punishment for a Range I offender when the defendant was actually a Range II offender. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence1995And it sounded like, they stated, like someone was trying to break in.’” Id. at 558 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Livingston Limestone Co.
green
1 sentence1990Smith v. Livingstone Limestone Co., 547 S.W.2d 942 (1977), we are unable to preceive the prejudicial error assigned to the allowance of this proof. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Procunier v. Martinez
red
2 sentences1989Defendant insists that the seizure of the letters violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech under Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1973). 1989Defendant insists that the seizure of the letters violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech under Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1973). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Douglas Earl Savage
green
1 sentence1989Defendant insists that the seizure of the letters violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech under Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1973). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences1975The defendant Elliott also contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to declare a mistrial when a state’s witness, in relating the substance of Mitch-um’s oral confession, implicated Elliott, citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). 1975The defendant Elliott also contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to declare a mistrial when a state’s witness, in relating the substance of Mitch-um’s oral confession, implicated Elliott, citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Dykes v. State
green
2 sentences1962The argument is that the same error was committed here by the trial judge as was committed in Dykes v. State, 201 Tenn. 65 , 296 S.W.2d 861 , and related cases. 1962The argument is that the same error was committed here by the trial judge as was committed in Dykes v. State, 201 Tenn. 65 , 296 S.W.2d 861 , and related cases. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Prewitt-Spurr Manufacturing Co. v. Woodall
neutral
1 sentence1932And in, support of this assignment, counsel for the defendants have cited and rely on Pullman Company v. Pennock, 118 Tenn., 565 , 102 S. W., 73 ; Manufacturing Company v. Woodall, 115 Tenn., 605 , 90 S. W., 623 ; English v. Ricks, 117 Tenn., 73 , 95 S. W., 189 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
English v. Ricks
green
1 sentence1932And in, support of this assignment, counsel for the defendants have cited and rely on Pullman Company v. Pennock, 118 Tenn., 565 , 102 S. W., 73 ; Manufacturing Company v. Woodall, 115 Tenn., 605 , 90 S. W., 623 ; English v. Ricks, 117 Tenn., 73 , 95 S. W., 189 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Pullman Co. v. Pennock green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.