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 2 courts 1998–2016 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. Gomezgreen2 sentences2006After Defendant’s sentencing hearing was held, our supreme court decided State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005), in which the court concluded that “[t]he Reform Act [of Tennessee] authorizes a discretionary, non-mandatory sentencing procedure and requires trial judges to consider the principles of sentencing to engage in a qualitative analysis of enhancement and mitigating factors . . . all of which serve to guide trial judges in exercising their discretion to select an appropriate sentence within the range set by the Legislature.” Gomez, 163 S.W.3d at 661 . 2006After Defendant’s sentencing hearing was held, our supreme court decided State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005), in which the court concluded that “[t]he Reform Act [of Tennessee] authorizes a discretionary, non-mandatory sentencing procedure and requires trial judges to consider the principles of sentencing to engage in a qualitative analysis of enhancement and mitigating factors . . . all of which serve to guide trial judges in exercising their discretion to select an appropriate sentence within the range set by the Legislature.” Gomez, 163 S.W.3d at 661 . | 3 | 21 |
The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C. v. Heinrich Bauer Verlaggreen2 sentences2003On the other hand, it is difficult to identify an absolute amount which ipso facto must be deemed 'substantial.' ” Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Verlag, 536 F.2d 429, 432-33 (D.C.Cir.1976) (finding that 26,000 or one percent of annual sales constituted 'substantial revenue’) (quoting Ajax Realty Corp. v. J.F. 1998On the other hand, it is difficult to identify an absolute amount which ipso fa cto must be dee med ‘substa ntial.’” Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Verlag, 536 F.2d 429 , 432–33 (D.C. | 1 | 2 |
Nash v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016As a general matter, we do not doubt the constitutionality of laws that call for the application of a qualitative standard such as “substantial risk” to real-world conduct; “the law is full of instances where a man‟s fate depends on his estimating rightly ... some matter of degree.” Id. at 2561 (emphasis in original) (quoting Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 377 (1913)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Santiagogreen1 sentence2006See State v. Santiago, 914 S.W.2d 116, 125 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Further, the trial court noted that the appellant was the “lead participant” in 1 W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that despite the ability of trial judges to set sentences above the presumptive sentence based on the finding of enhancement factors neither found by a jury or admitted by a defendant, Tennessee’s sentencing structure does not violate the Sixth Amendment and does not conflict with the holdings of Blakely v. W ashington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v. FanFan, the case consolidated with Booker, because “ 2006Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (e).1 1 W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that despite the ability of trial judges to set sentences above the presumptive sentence based on the finding of enhancement factors neither found by a jury or admitted by a defendant, Tennessee’s sentencing structure does not violate the Sixth Amendment and does not conflict with the holdings of Blakely v. W ashington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v. FanFan, the case consolidated with Booker, because “the Reform Act [of Tennessee] authorizes a dis | 19 | 2005–2007 |
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2007Further, the trial court noted that the appellant was the “lead participant” in 1 W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that despite the ability of trial judges to set sentences above the presumptive sentence based on the finding of enhancement factors neither found by a jury or admitted by a defendant, Tennessee’s sentencing structure does not violate the Sixth Amendment and does not conflict with the holdings of Blakely v. W ashington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v. FanFan, the case consolidated with Booker, because “ 2006Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (e).1 1 W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court has determined that despite the ability of trial judges to set sentences above the presumptive sentence based on the finding of enhancement factors neither found by a jury or admitted by a defendant, Tennessee’s sentencing structure does not violate the Sixth Amendment and does not conflict with the holdings of Blakely v. W ashington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or United States v. FanFan, the case consolidated with Booker, because “the Reform Act [of Tennessee] authorizes a dis | 19 | 2005–2007 |
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.