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.
18 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
John Paul Seals v. State of Tennesseegreen2 sentences2018See Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 279 (noting that “[t]he ‘later-arising claim’ limitation in Sands reflects the concern that a petitioner who fails to assert an existing claim, that is, a claim that is not later-arising, in a timely fashion may not expect due process relief”). 2013“The ‘later-arising claim’ limitation in Sands reflects the concern that a petitioner who fails to assert an existing claim, that is, a claim that is not later-arising, in a timely fashion may not expect due process relief . . . .” Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272, 278 (Tenn. 2000). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Shepherdgreen1 sentence2017The Bishop court expressly stated that its holding did not change the existing rule that “the corpus delicti of a felony murder does not include the predicate felony.” Id.; see State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895, 901 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Miles v. Kaiglergreen1 sentence2017Miles v. Kaigler, 18 Tenn. 10 1836 [;] Spitzer v. Knoxville Iron, Co., 133 Tenn. 217 , 180 S.W. 163 (1915)[;] Tune v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 223 F.Supp. 928 (M[.]B[.] Tenn. 1963). | 1 | 1 |
Stateline Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Shieldsgreen1 sentence2015It does not extinguish a claim or cause of action.”); Stateline Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Shields, 837 A.2d 285, 290 (N.H. 2003) (“Unlike a release, a covenant not to sue does not relinquish a right of claim, or extinguish a cause of action. | 1 | 1 |
J & J Farmer Leasing, Inc. v. Citizens Insurance Co. of Americagreen1 sentence2015Co. of America, 696 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Mich. 2005) (“A release immediately discharges an existing claim or right. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2010“The “later-arising claim” limitation in Sands reflects the concern that a petitioner who fails to assert an existing claim, that is, a claim that is not later-arising, in a timely fashion may not expect due process relief under Burford.” Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 277 ; see also Brown v. State, 928 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Sands v. Stategreen1 sentence2001A defendant “who fails to assert an existing claim . . . in a timely fashion may not expect due process relief under Burford.” Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 278 ; see also Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Mosesgreen1 sentence1999Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tenn.1996)(citing Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tenn.1995)(choosing in favor of the existing doctrine of equitable estoppel over equitable tolling)). | 1 | 1 |
Norton v. Everhartgreen1 sentence1999Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tenn.1996)(citing Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tenn.1995)(choosing in favor of the existing doctrine of equitable estoppel over equitable tolling)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2018In Padilla, 559 U.S. at 368-69 , the United States Supreme Court held that counsel engaged in deficient performance under the first prong of the test in Strickland by failing to advise his non-citizen client that his guilty plea made him subject to automatic deportation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Spitzer v. Knoxville Iron Co.
neutral
1 sentence2017Miles v. Kaigler, 18 Tenn. 10 1836 [;] Spitzer v. Knoxville Iron, Co., 133 Tenn. 217 , 180 S.W. 163 (1915)[;] Tune v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 223 F.Supp. 928 (M[.]B[.] Tenn. 1963). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tune v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
green
1 sentence2017Miles v. Kaigler, 18 Tenn. 10 1836 [;] Spitzer v. Knoxville Iron, Co., 133 Tenn. 217 , 180 S.W. 163 (1915)[;] Tune v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 223 F.Supp. 928 (M[.]B[.] Tenn. 1963). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In the Interest of F.P.
green
1 sentence2015Ev. 901 and Pennsylvania case law.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smallwood v. Mann
green
1 sentence2012However, the two situations are fundamentally different, as emphasized by our Supreme Court in Smallwood v. Mann, 205 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Avery v. State
green
1 sentence2012Subsequently, in Avery v. State, 129 P.3d 664 (Nev. 2006), the Nevada Supreme Court turned its attention to whether its holding in Palmer must be applied retroactively in cases on collateral review and determined that Palmer announced a new rule: Far from merely interpreting or clarifying an existing rule, in Palmer we explored whether lifetime supervision was a direct consequence or a collateral consequence of a guilty plea to a sexual offense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Graham
green
1 sentence2010The court in Graham also held that the language of Rule 31(e) of the proposed Rules of Criminal Procedure, which were adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court in January of 1976 but had not been ratified by the Legislature, was “the existing rule in Tennessee.” Id. at 922 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence2010The City relies on John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2005The State contends that the Blakely court did not pronounce a new rule of law but merely -4- applied the existing rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2005The State contends that the Blakely court did not pronounce a new rule of law but merely -4- applied the existing rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Unification of the Montana Bar Ass'n
neutral
2 sentences1955Thereafter that Court denied the petition in 25 N. W. (2d) 500, 503 , with the statement, among others, that: “We regret that a nearly complete support of the existing bar associations by members of the bar has not been achieved, and advocate its complete and whole-hearted support by the individual members of the bar.” The Montana Supreme Court took similar action, one reason assigned being that: “The lawyers of the state have not spoken in impressive enough numbers to convince us that the time is at hand when such measures are justified.” In re Unification of Montana Bar Ass’n, 107 Mont. 559 1955Thereafter that Court denied the petition in 25 N. W. (2d) 500, 503 , with the statement, among others, that: “We regret that a nearly complete support of the existing bar associations by members of the bar has not been achieved, and advocate its complete and whole-hearted support by the individual members of the bar.” The Montana Supreme Court took similar action, one reason assigned being that: “The lawyers of the state have not spoken in impressive enough numbers to convince us that the time is at hand when such measures are justified.” In re Unification of Montana Bar Ass’n, 107 Mont. 559 | 1 | 1955–1955 |
In Re Integration of the Nebraska State Bar Ass'n
green
2 sentences1955Of the 4 States in which integration is said to have been put into effect by rule of Court an entirely different situation from that with which we are faced is found to exist in at least three of those States in that Nebraska, In re Integration of Nebraska Bar Ass’n, 133 Neb. 283 , 275 N. W. 265 , 114 A. L. 1955Of the 4 States in which integration is said to have been put into effect by rule of Court an entirely different situation from that with which we are faced is found to exist in at least three of those States in that Nebraska, In re Integration of Nebraska Bar Ass’n, 133 Neb. 283 , 275 N. W. 265 , 114 A. L. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
In Re Integration of the Bar
green
1 sentence1955Thereafter that Court denied the petition in 25 N. W. (2d) 500, 503 , with the statement, among others, that: “We regret that a nearly complete support of the existing bar associations by members of the bar has not been achieved, and advocate its complete and whole-hearted support by the individual members of the bar.” The Montana Supreme Court took similar action, one reason assigned being that: “The lawyers of the state have not spoken in impressive enough numbers to convince us that the time is at hand when such measures are justified.” In re Unification of Montana Bar Ass’n, 107 Mont. 559 | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Gettys v. Gettys
neutral
1 sentence1947Gettys v. Gettys, 71 Tenn. 260 , 31 Am. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Gambill
neutral
1 sentence1934Grant v. Railroad Co., supra, page 409 of 129 Tenn., 165 S. W., 963; Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Gambill, 142 Tenn., 633, 649 , 222 S. W., 5 ; Heggie v. Barley, 5 Higgins (5 Tenn. Civ. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.