21 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jeffrey Scott Amosgreen2 sentences2010"It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed." United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419, 421 (8th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Freeman, 804 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1986). 1999Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). *741 “It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.” United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419, 421 (8th Cir.1986). | 2 | 2 |
Patterson v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-07 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). 2004See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-07 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Workmangreen2 sentences2026Furthermore, a lesser standard would appear to be more appropriate. . . . 111 S.W.3d at 18 . 2005Furthermore, a lesser standard would appear to be more appropriate . . . . -12- 111 S.W.3d at 18 . | 1 | 3 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2018See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 , 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-80 (1968). 2018See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 , 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-80 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dwayne Freemangreen1 sentence2010"It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed." United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419, 421 (8th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Freeman, 804 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2002It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.”); cf. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 367-368 , 116 S. Ct. 1373, 1383 (1996). 4 Appellant’s issue IV. -23- Following Leland, the Court has clarified that placing the burden of proving an affirmative defense upon a criminal defendant will only violate due process if proving the affirmative defense necessarily negates any essential element of the offense. 2002It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.”); cf. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 367-368 , 116 S. Ct. 1373, 1383 (1996). 4 Appellant’s issue IV. -23- Following Leland, the Court has clarified that placing the burden of proving an affirmative defense upon a criminal defendant will only violate due process if proving the affirmative defense necessarily negates any essential element of the offense. | 1 | 1 |
Michael L. Wood v. R.C. Marshall, Supt.green1 sentence2002See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-207 , 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2325 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 686-687 , 95 S. Ct. 1881, 1883-1884 (1975); see also Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 286-287 (6th Cir. 2000); Wood v. Marshall, 790 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Mullaney v. Wilburgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-207 , 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2325 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 686-687 , 95 S. Ct. 1881, 1883-1884 (1975); see also Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 286-287 (6th Cir. 2000); Wood v. Marshall, 790 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1986). 2002See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-207 , 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2325 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 686-687 , 95 S. Ct. 1881, 1883-1884 (1975); see also Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 286-287 (6th Cir. 2000); Wood v. Marshall, 790 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Wardengreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 206-207 , 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2325 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 686-687 , 95 S. Ct. 1881, 1883-1884 (1975); see also Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 286-287 (6th Cir. 2000); Wood v. Marshall, 790 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2002In Pruitt, our supreme court stated that a lesser standard would be tantamount to approval of “pure hearsay evidence of intoxication.” 393 S.W.2d at 752 ; see also State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
O'DANIEL v. Messiergreen1 sentence2001Although this is a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence,” it is a lesser standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” O’Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen1 sentence2000Tennessee courts have determined that there has been “manifest injustice” where the guilty plea was entered as a result of “coercion, fraud, duress or mistake,” Capri Adult Cinema v. State, 537 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tenn. 1976); “fear,” Swang v. State, 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 212 , 213-14 (1865); “gross misrepresentation” by the prosecution, id. at 214-15; or the plea was not voluntarily, understandingly, or knowingly entered, State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 355 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 466-67 (Tenn. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Capri Adult Cinema v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Tennessee courts have determined that there has been “manifest injustice” where the guilty plea was entered as a result of “coercion, fraud, duress or mistake,” Capri Adult Cinema v. State, 537 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tenn. 1976); “fear,” Swang v. State, 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 212 , 213-14 (1865); “gross misrepresentation” by the prosecution, id. at 214-15; or the plea was not voluntarily, understandingly, or knowingly entered, State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 355 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Swang v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Tennessee courts have determined that there has been “manifest injustice” where the guilty plea was entered as a result of “coercion, fraud, duress or mistake,” Capri Adult Cinema v. State, 537 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tenn. 1976); “fear,” Swang v. State, 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 212 , 213-14 (1865); “gross misrepresentation” by the prosecution, id. at 214-15; or the plea was not voluntarily, understandingly, or knowingly entered, State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 355 (Tenn. Crim. 2000Tennessee courts have determined that there has been “manifest injustice” where the guilty plea was entered as a result of “coercion, fraud, duress or mistake,” Capri Adult Cinema v. State, 537 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tenn. 1976); “fear,” Swang v. State, 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 212 , 213-14 (1865); “gross misrepresentation” by the prosecution, id. at 214-15; or the plea was not voluntarily, understandingly, or knowingly entered, State v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 346, 355 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swindlegreen1 sentence2000This is true whether the standard is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” or under the lesser standard that the error “more probably than not affected the judgment to the defendant’s prejudice.” See State v. Swindle, 30 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tenn. 1998) Regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the trial court erred in failing to charge “joyriding,” i.e. unauthorized use of a vehicle as prohibited in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-106, we note that this court has previously held that “joyriding” is a lesser-included offense of theft of a v | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2000This is true whether the standard is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” or under the lesser standard that the error “more probably than not affected the judgment to the defendant’s prejudice.” See State v. Swindle, 30 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tenn. 1998) Regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the trial court erred in failing to charge “joyriding,” i.e. unauthorized use of a vehicle as prohibited in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-106, we note that this court has previously held that “joyriding” is a lesser-included offense of theft of a v | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Swanson
green
2 sentences2016The issue is whether placing [the child] in the custody of [father] would pose substantial harm to her physical or psychological welfare.” The Supreme Court “reject[s] the contention . . . that at some point the fact that the child has been in the custody of a non-parent for a period of time means that a lesser standard can be applied in determining whether parental rights may be terminated.” In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180 , 188 n.13 (Tenn. 1999). 2016In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d at 188 n. - 15 - 13. | 3 | 2007–2016 |
Catholic Ldrship Coaltn of TX v. David Reis
green
1 sentence2019Catholic Leadership Coal. of Texas, 764 F.3d. at 427 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2018Turner, 297 S.W.3d at 162 n.4. “[T]he Court left open the question ‘whether. . . a search by a law enforcement officer without any individualized suspicion would have satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. at 162 . 2018Turner, 297 S.W.3d at 162 n.4. “[T]he Court left open the question ‘whether. . . a search by a law enforcement officer without any individualized suspicion would have satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. at 162 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re CWW
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence2008Id. app. at 170-71. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pruitt v. State
green
1 sentence2002In Pruitt, our supreme court stated that a lesser standard would be tantamount to approval of “pure hearsay evidence of intoxication.” 393 S.W.2d at 752 ; see also State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1999Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). *741 “It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.” United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419, 421 (8th Cir.1986). 1999Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). *741 “It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.” United States v. Amos, 803 F.2d 419, 421 (8th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1997Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 280 , 113 S.Ct. at 2080-2082 . 1997Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 280 , 113 S.Ct. at 2080-2082 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Pablo Berrios
green
1 sentence1997United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211-12 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Adams v. Williams
green
2 sentences1989Adams, 407 U.S. at 145 , 92 S.Ct. at 1923 . 1989Adams, 407 U.S. at 145 , 92 S.Ct. at 1923 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.