21 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2026 2 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. Powersgreen2 sentences2015See Powers, 101 S.W.3d at 397 . 2015See Powers, 101 S.W.3d at 397 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2006State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 837 (Tenn. 2002) (stating that 404(b) does not apply when a third party defense is at issue); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997). 2006Likewise, in Stevens , we held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence offered by the defendant to establish a third party defense. 78 S.W.3d at 836-37 . | 3 | 4 |
Soper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2003See Soper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1032, 1038 (1996). 2003Citing Soper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1032, 1038 (1996). 2 The rules of statutory construction are set forth in an opinion by our Supreme Court in Browder v. Morris, 975 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn.1998), as follows: The construction of a statute is a question of law which appellate courts review de novo, with no presumption of correctness. | 3 | 3 |
State v. McAlistergreen2 sentences2000State v. McAlister, 751 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1987). 2000State v. McAlister, 751 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987). | 3 | 3 |
State v. DuBosegreen2 sentences2014State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 612-13 (Tenn. 2006). “‘[E]vidence of crimes, wrongs or acts, if relevant, is not excluded by Rule 404(b) if the acts were committed by a person other than the accused.’” -53- State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 837 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting State v. Dubose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997)). 2006State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 837 (Tenn. 2002) (stating that 404(b) does not apply when a third party defense is at issue); State v. DuBose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2014State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593, 612-13 (Tenn. 2006). “‘[E]vidence of crimes, wrongs or acts, if relevant, is not excluded by Rule 404(b) if the acts were committed by a person other than the accused.’” -53- State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 837 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting State v. Dubose, 953 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn. 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Spicer v. Stategreen2 sentences2006However, we held that the error was harmless given the "overwhelming evidence of the defendant's participation in these murders," explaining that "[w]e have long recognized that `the line between harmless and prejudicial error is in direct proportion to the degree ... by which proof exceeds the standard required to convict. . . .'" Id. at 838 (quoting Spicer v. State, 12 S.W.3d 438, 447-48 (Tenn. 2000)). 2006However, we held that the error was harmless given the “overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s participation in these murders,” explaining that “[w]e have long recognized that ‘the line between harmless and prejudicial error is in direct proportion to the degree ... by which proof exceeds the standard required to convict....’ ” Id. at 838 (quoting Spicer v. State, 12 S.W.3d 438, 447-48 (Tenn.2000)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carruthersgreen2 sentences2006Quoting State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 575 (Tenn.2000) (appendix), the trial court stated that evidence in support of a third-party defense "must be the type that would be admissible against the third party if he or she were on trial, and the proof must be limited to facts inconsistent with the [defendant's] guilt." The trial court concluded that the alleged facts were not inconsistent with Rogers' guilt, and the evidence would not be admissible in a trial of Jeremy Beard under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence because it showed Jeremy's propensity toward sexual activity with 2006Quoting State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 575 (Tenn.2000) (appendix), the trial court stated that evidence in support of a third-party defense “must be the type that would be admissible against the third party if he or she were on trial, and the proof must be limited to facts inconsistent with the [defendant’s] guilt.” The trial court concluded that the alleged facts were not inconsistent with Rogers’ guilt, and the evidence would not be admissible in a trial of Jeremy Beard under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence because it showed Jeremy’s propensity toward sexual activity with | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kilburngreen1 sentence1999Where the proof is consistent with this hypothesis, it is to be considered by the jury.” State v. Kilburn, 782 S.W.2d 199, 204 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sawyers v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Green v. State, 154 Tenn. 26, 34 (1926); Sawyers v. State, 83 Tenn. 694, 695 (1885); Hensley v. State, 28 Tenn. 243 , 245 (1848); State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602, 612 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spurlockgreen1 sentence1998Green v. State, 154 Tenn. 26, 34 (1926); Sawyers v. State, 83 Tenn. 694, 695 (1885); Hensley v. State, 28 Tenn. 243 , 245 (1848); State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602, 612 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Green v. State, 154 Tenn. 26, 34 (1926); Sawyers v. State, 83 Tenn. 694, 695 (1885); Hensley v. State, 28 Tenn. 243 , 245 (1848); State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602, 612 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Browder v. Morris
green
2 sentences2003Citing Soper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1032, 1038 (1996). [2] The rules of statutory construction are set forth in an opinion by our Supreme Court in Browder v. Morris, 975 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn.1998), as follows: The construction of a statute is a question of law which appellate courts review de novo, with no presumption of correctness. 2003Citing Soper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1032, 1038 (1996). 2 The rules of statutory construction are set forth in an opinion by our Supreme Court in Browder v. Morris, 975 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn.1998), as follows: The construction of a statute is a question of law which appellate courts review de novo, with no presumption of correctness. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Owens v. State
green
1 sentence2026“For purposes of proving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, proof of deficient representation by omission requires more than a speculative showing of a lost potential benefit.” Owens, 13 S.W.3d at 756 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2025This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. 466 U.S. at 687 . -5- Here, the Petitioner’s primary contention in the amended petition was that trial counsel’s failure to file a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 prevented him from presenting a third-party defense that someone else raped the victim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Valley Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Ayers
green
1 sentence2017“Under certain provisions, the third-party claim must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the basis of the plaintiff’s claim and must contain common questions of fact.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hensley v. State
green
1 sentence1998Green v. State, 154 Tenn. 26, 34 (1926); Sawyers v. State, 83 Tenn. 694, 695 (1885); Hensley v. State, 28 Tenn. 243 , 245 (1848); State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602, 612 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Perry v. City of Cedar Falls
green
2 sentences1991Due diligence is defined as "such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case." Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) (citing Perry v. Cedar Falls, 87 Iowa 315 , 54 N.W. 225 (1893)). 1991Due diligence is defined as "such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case." Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) (citing Perry v. Cedar Falls, 87 Iowa 315 , 54 N.W. 225 (1893)). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Terrell v. Terrell
green
2 sentences1982In so doing, the Chancellor relied upon statements contained in legal treatises and upon the Tennessee cases of Terrell v. Terrell, (1955) 200 Tenn. 289 , 292 S.W.2d 179 ; Nolen v. Witherspoon, (1945) 182 Tenn. 333 , 187 S.W.2d 14 ; Williams v. S. & W. 1982In so doing, the Chancellor relied upon statements contained in legal treatises and upon the Tennessee cases of Terrell v. Terrell, (1955) 200 Tenn. 289 , 292 S.W.2d 179 ; Nolen v. Witherspoon, (1945) 182 Tenn. 333 , 187 S.W.2d 14 ; Williams v. S. & W. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Nolen v. Witherspoon
green
2 sentences1982In so doing, the Chancellor relied upon statements contained in legal treatises and upon the Tennessee cases of Terrell v. Terrell, (1955) 200 Tenn. 289 , 292 S.W.2d 179 ; Nolen v. Witherspoon, (1945) 182 Tenn. 333 , 187 S.W.2d 14 ; Williams v. S. & W. 1982In so doing, the Chancellor relied upon statements contained in legal treatises and upon the Tennessee cases of Terrell v. Terrell, (1955) 200 Tenn. 289 , 292 S.W.2d 179 ; Nolen v. Witherspoon, (1945) 182 Tenn. 333 , 187 S.W.2d 14 ; Williams v. S. & W. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wilson v. City of Chattanooga
green
2 sentences1975Wilson v. Chattanooga, 179 Tenn. 234 , 165 S.W.2d 373 (1942); Keen v. Allison, 166 Tenn. 218 , 60 S.W.2d 158 (1933). 1975Wilson v. Chattanooga, 179 Tenn. 234 , 165 S.W.2d 373 (1942); Keen v. Allison, 166 Tenn. 218 , 60 S.W.2d 158 (1933). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Keen v. Allison
green
2 sentences1975Wilson v. Chattanooga, 179 Tenn. 234 , 165 S.W.2d 373 (1942); Keen v. Allison, 166 Tenn. 218 , 60 S.W.2d 158 (1933). 1975Wilson v. Chattanooga, 179 Tenn. 234 , 165 S.W.2d 373 (1942); Keen v. Allison, 166 Tenn. 218 , 60 S.W.2d 158 (1933). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.