17 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, L.L.C.green2 sentences2014In Myers [v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 309 (Tenn. 2012)], we held that “[t]o determine whether the use of the word ‘shall’ in a statute is mandatory or merely directory, we look to see ‘whether the prescribed mode of action is of the essence of the thing to be accomplished.’ ” As we explained in Jones v. Prof’l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., the touchstone of this analysis is whether a party’s procedural error resulted in actual prejudice to an opposing party. 193 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2006) (“failure to conform to technical requirements is not fatal where allowing such amendment 2013As we explained in Jones v. Prof l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., the touchstone of this analysis is whether a party’s procedural error resulted in actual prejudice to an opposing party. 193 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn.2006) (“failure to conform to technical requirements is not fatal where allowing such amendment does not prejudice the defendant and promotes the interests of justice”). | 3 | 3 |
State of Tennessee v. Corrin Kathleen Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2019Nevertheless, the ultimate touchstone of analysis under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 is reasonableness, see King, 563 U.S. at 459 ; State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 304 (Tenn. 2016), so exceptions to the warrant or the probable cause requirement have been recognized, and in certain limited circumstances, neither is required. | 1 | 1 |
STATE of Tennessee v. James David MOATSred1 sentence2015“As with all Fourth Amendment questions, the touchstone of the analysis is reasonableness.” State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170, 194 (Tenn. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Curtis Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc., d/b/a St. Francis Hospitalgreen1 sentence2014In Myers [v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 309 (Tenn. 2012)], we held that “[t]o determine whether the use of the word ‘shall’ in a statute is mandatory or merely directory, we look to see ‘whether the prescribed mode of action is of the essence of the thing to be accomplished.’ ” As we explained in Jones v. Prof’l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., the touchstone of this analysis is whether a party’s procedural error resulted in actual prejudice to an opposing party. 193 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2006) (“failure to conform to technical requirements is not fatal where allowing such amendment | 1 | 1 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2013See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 898 , 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). 2013See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 898 , 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 427226green1 sentence2009The district court quipped that its task was to "sail into that cherished legal haven, 'Is [the non-compete covenant] reasonable under the circumstances?' " See C & D, 720 F.2d at 1557 (noting that the district court relied on the Tennessee case, Allright Auto Parks, 409 S.W.2d at 363 ). 14 .The non-compete covenants in C & D were for a ninety-day period. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen1 sentence2005“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). -7- Tennessee’s challenged DNA statute, codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 321, requires a person convicted of a felony to provide a biological specimen for the purpose of DNA analysis. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2001While the general rule is that a party “may not litigate an issue on one ground, abandon that ground post-trial, and assert a new basis or ground for his contention in this Court,” State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 781 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990), this rule is subject to some flexibility. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. White
green
2 sentences2013The court in Cecil emphasized that “the touchstone of this inquiry is whether a rational trier of fact could interpret the proof at trial in different ways.” Cecil, ___ S.W.3d ___, at *10 (citing White, 362 S.W.3d at 579 ). 2013The court in Cecil emphasized that “the touchstone of this inquiry is whether a rational trier of fact could interpret the proof at trial in different ways.” Cecil, ___ S.W.3d ___, at *10 (citing White, 362 S.W.3d at 579 ). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Community Health Care Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The trial court held that the plaintiff‟s authorization “clearly states that plaintiff Hunt gives permission for records to be sent to the person[s] or entities listed below, not to the [plaintiffs‟] law firm on whose letterhead this is printed.” Ultimately, “the touchstone of this analysis is whether a party‟s procedural error resulted in actual prejudice to an opposing party.” Stevens, 418 S.W.3d at 555 . 2015“The touchstone of this analysis is whether a party's procedural error resulted in actual 4 prejudice to an opposing party.” Id. at 555 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Kentucky v. King
green
1 sentence2019Nevertheless, the ultimate touchstone of analysis under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 is reasonableness, see King, 563 U.S. at 459 ; State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 304 (Tenn. 2016), so exceptions to the warrant or the probable cause requirement have been recognized, and in certain limited circumstances, neither is required. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mary C. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Ultimately, we noted that the touchstone of this inquiry is “‘the fairness and independence of the trial court's judgment.’” Matthew T., 2016 WL 1621076 , at *5 (quoting Smith, 439 S.W.3d at 316 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2011The touchstone of this inquiry is whether “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . 2011The touchstone of this inquiry is whether “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry
green
1 sentence2009The district court quipped that its task was to "sail into that cherished legal haven, 'Is [the non-compete covenant] reasonable under the circumstances?' " See C & D, 720 F.2d at 1557 (noting that the district court relied on the Tennessee case, Allright Auto Parks, 409 S.W.2d at 363 ). 14 .The non-compete covenants in C & D were for a ninety-day period. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2005“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). -7- Tennessee’s challenged DNA statute, codified in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35- 321, requires a person convicted of a felony to provide a biological specimen for the purpose of DNA analysis. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
1 sentence2001Even substituting the phrase "reasonable probability” with "significant possibility,” though, Justice Souter emphasized that “the touchstone of the inquiry must remain whether the evidentiary suppression 'undermines our confidence’ that the factfinder would have reached the same result.” Id. at 300-01 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 . 8 .The appellee vigorously objects to the State changing its theory of the case on appeal with respect to the (i)(3) aggravating circumstance. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2001Even substituting the phrase "reasonable probability” with "significant possibility,” though, Justice Souter emphasized that “the touchstone of the inquiry must remain whether the evidentiary suppression 'undermines our confidence’ that the factfinder would have reached the same result.” Id. at 300-01 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 . 8 .The appellee vigorously objects to the State changing its theory of the case on appeal with respect to the (i)(3) aggravating circumstance. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.