16 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2017The purpose of the notice requirement is to provide a defendant with ―fair notice‖ that he is ―exposed to other than standard sentencing.‖ State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990). 2017The purpose of the notice requirement is to provide a defendant with “fair notice” that he is “exposed to other than standard sentencing.” State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990). | 5 | 8 |
Jones v. Sterling Last Corp.green2 sentences2006“The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the employer ‘the opportunity to *721 make a timely investigation of the facts while still readily accessible, and to enable the employer to provide timely and proper treatment for the injured employee.’ ” Banks, 170 S.W.3d at 562 (quoting Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn.1998)). 2005The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the employer “the opportunity to make a timely investigation of the facts while still readily accessible, and to enable the employer to provide timely and proper treatment for the injured employee.” Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn.1998) (citing Puckett v. N.A.P. | 2 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Patterson AKA John O'Keefe Varner AKA John O'Keefe Kitchengreen1 sentence2018State v. Patterson, 538 S.W.3d 431, 438 (Tenn. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2012“The purpose of the notice requirement in a health care liability case is to encourage pre-suit negotiations and settlement and to reduce litigation costs.” Hill v. Russell, 247 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.2008) (citing De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., Inc., 852 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex.1993)). 2012“The purpose of the notice requirement in a health care liability case is to encourage pre-suit negotiations and settlement and to reduce litigation costs.” Hill v. Russell, 247 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.2008) (citing De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., Inc., 852 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Russellgreen2 sentences2012“The purpose of the notice requirement in a health care liability case is to encourage pre-suit negotiations and settlement and to reduce litigation costs.” Hill v. Russell, 247 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.2008) (citing De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., Inc., 852 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex.1993)). 2012“The purpose of the notice requirement in a health care liability case is to encourage pre-suit negotiations and settlement and to reduce litigation costs.” Hill v. Russell, 247 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.2008) (citing De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., Inc., 852 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Sharpstown General Hospitalgreen1 sentence2012Texas state courts have held that the purpose of the notice requirement statute is “to facilitate discussion of the merits of a potential health care claim and thereby initiate amicable settlement negotiations.” Phillips v. Sharpstown General Hosp., 664 S.W.2d 162, 168 (Tex.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Livingstongreen1 sentence2007Regarding the contents of the notice, Code section 40-35-202 “requires, at a minimum, that the State file: (1) written notice, (2) clearly expressing the State’s intention to seek sentencing outside of the standard offender range, (3) setting forth the nature of the prior felony conviction, the dates of the convictions, and the identity of the courts of the convictions.” Livingston, 197 S.W.3d at 713-14 (footnote omitted); see T.C.A. § 40-35-202(a) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McClain v. Kimbrough Const. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2016As noted here, the purpose of the notice requirement is to allow a defaulting party an opportunity to repair "defective work,” McClain, 806 S.W.2d at 198 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jenkins v. Marvel
green
1 sentence2012Jenkins v. Marvel, 683 F.Supp.2d at 638 -9 Similarly, this court has stated that the purpose of the sixty day notice provision is "to give the defendant the opportunity to investigate and perhaps even settle the case before it is actually filed. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Chase
green
1 sentence2012Chase, 873 S.W.2d at 9 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Banks v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006“The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the employer ‘the opportunity to *721 make a timely investigation of the facts while still readily accessible, and to enable the employer to provide timely and proper treatment for the injured employee.’ ” Banks, 170 S.W.3d at 562 (quoting Jones v. Sterling Last Corp., 962 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn.1998)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.