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.
16 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2010 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. Binghamgreen2 sentences2010When, as here, the defendant is entitled to the statutory presumption favoring alternative sentencing, the State must overcome the presumption by the showing of “evidence to the contrary.” Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 ; State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. 2010When, as here, the defendant is entitled to the statutory presumption favoring alternative sentencing, the state must overcome the presumption by the showing of “evidence to the contrary.” Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 ; State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. | 16 | 16 |
State v. Hoopergreen2 sentences2010App. 1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000). 2010App. 1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000); see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 (6), -103. | 2 | 12 |
State v. Ashbygreen2 sentences2010When, as here, the defendant is entitled to the statutory presumption favoring alternative sentencing, the State must overcome the presumption by the showing of “evidence to the contrary.” Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 ; State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. 2010When, as here, the defendant is entitled to the statutory presumption favoring alternative sentencing, the state must overcome the presumption by the showing of “evidence to the contrary.” Ashby, 823 S.W.2d at 169 ; State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 15 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. McClure
green
2 sentences2005App. 1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 2000); see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 (6), -103 (2003). 2005App. 1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 2000); see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-102 (6), -103 (1997). | 4 | 2002–2005 |
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.