Your MCP token and copy-and-paste setup for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and the rest are on the install page — filled in with your real credentials while you are signed in.
Delete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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.
24 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2011The function of the rule is to “strike a proper balance between the competing principles of finality and justice.” Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)). 2011The function of the rule is to “strike a proper balance between the competing principles of finality and justice.” Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)). | 16 | 17 |
Jerkins v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2011The function of the rule is to “strike a proper balance between the competing principles of finality and justice.” Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)). 2011The function of the rule is to “strike a proper balance between the competing principles of finality and justice.” Banks v. Dement Const. Co., Inc., 817 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. 1991) (quoting Jerkins v. McKinney, 533 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tenn. 1976)). | 16 | 17 |
Toney v. Mueller Co.green1 sentence2011“Rule 60.02 is meant to be used only in those few cases that meet one or more of the criteria stated.” Toney v. Mueller Co., 810 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tenn. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
George, Diane v. Leavitt, Michaelgreen2 sentences2010See George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 411 (D.C. 2010See George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 411 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting United States Postal Serv. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Laurenzi v. Atlas Ins.
neutral
1 sentence2009Co., 131 Tenn. 644 , 176 S.W. 1022 , 1026 (1915). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Cooper v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2004The issue of proper burden of proof was addressed in Cooper v. Oklahoma, in which the United States Supreme Court stated: The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact-finding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). 2004The issue of proper burden of proof was addressed in Cooper v. Oklahoma, in which the United States Supreme Court stated: The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact-finding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2004The issue of proper burden of proof was addressed in Cooper v. Oklahoma, in which the United States Supreme Court stated: The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact-finding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). 2004The issue of proper burden of proof was addressed in Cooper v. Oklahoma, in which the United States Supreme Court stated: The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact-finding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bolton v. State
green
1 sentence1998Failure to complain of the alleged discovery violation and to seek a remedy as soon as the defense learns of it may be treated as waiver.11 See Bolton v. State, 617 S.W.2d 909 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McCully v. State
green
1 sentence1988This is a function of the rule that provisions should be construed in pari materia. [14] If a city court exercises constitutional judicial power, the refusal of a board of commissioners to state a reason for removal would, therefore, be improper. [15] "If the law was manifestly misunderstood or misapplied in the case decided, its primacy as a precedent may be overthrown." The Judges' Cases, supra, 102 Tenn. at 542 , 53 S.W. at 142. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Poor Sisters of St. Francis v. Long
green
2 sentences1971Francis v. Long (1950), 190 Tenn. 434 , 230 S.W.2d 659 , and Wooten v. Curry (1962), 50 Tenn. App. 549 , 362 S.W.2d 820 , and the authorities cited therein. 1971Francis v. Long (1950), 190 Tenn. 434 , 230 S.W.2d 659 , and Wooten v. Curry (1962), 50 Tenn. App. 549 , 362 S.W.2d 820 , and the authorities cited therein. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Wooten v. Curry
green
2 sentences1971Francis v. Long (1950), 190 Tenn. 434 , 230 S.W.2d 659 , and Wooten v. Curry (1962), 50 Tenn. App. 549 , 362 S.W.2d 820 , and the authorities cited therein. 1971Francis v. Long (1950), 190 Tenn. 434 , 230 S.W.2d 659 , and Wooten v. Curry (1962), 50 Tenn. App. 549 , 362 S.W.2d 820 , and the authorities cited therein. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.