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.
15 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2024 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. Bilbreygreen2 sentences2024Similarly, in State v. Bilbrey, Judge Tipton stated that the credibility inquiry is fact- driven and depends on the evidence submitted in each case. 858 S.W.2d at 915 (Tipton, J., concurring). “[C]redibility involves more than demeanor in that it ‘apprehends the over- all evaluation of testimony in the light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it hangs together with other evidence.’” Id. (quoting Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)). 2024Similarly, in State v. Bilbrey, Judge Tipton stated that the credibility inquiry is fact- driven and depends on the evidence submitted in each case. 858 S.W.2d at 915 (Tipton, J., concurring). “[C]redibility involves more than demeanor in that it ‘apprehends the over- all evaluation of testimony in the light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it hangs together with other evidence.’” Id. (quoting Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)). | 1 | 1 |
Paul John Carbo, Frank Palermo, Joseph Sica, Louis Tom Dragna, and Truman K. Gibson, Jr. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2024Similarly, in State v. Bilbrey, Judge Tipton stated that the credibility inquiry is fact- driven and depends on the evidence submitted in each case. 858 S.W.2d at 915 (Tipton, J., concurring). “[C]redibility involves more than demeanor in that it ‘apprehends the over- all evaluation of testimony in the light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it hangs together with other evidence.’” Id. (quoting Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963)). | 1 | 1 |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2020Cf. Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 830-31 (concluding that due process tolling was not merited when no explanation was given for an eighteen-year filing delay after the judgment became final, which also reflected an almost two-year delay between the petitioner’s being notified of the existence of new evidence and the petition’s filing); Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 146 (concluding that due process tolling was not merited when the petitioner waited six years to assert a coram nobis claim relative to alibi evidence and twenty-one months relative to a third-party confession). -24- The Petitioner’s sole issue on | 1 | 1 |
Ricky HARRIS v. STATE of Tennesseered1 sentence2020Cf. Nunley, 552 S.W.3d at 830-31 (concluding that due process tolling was not merited when no explanation was given for an eighteen-year filing delay after the judgment became final, which also reflected an almost two-year delay between the petitioner’s being notified of the existence of new evidence and the petition’s filing); Harris, 301 S.W.3d at 146 (concluding that due process tolling was not merited when the petitioner waited six years to assert a coram nobis claim relative to alibi evidence and twenty-one months relative to a third-party confession). -24- The Petitioner’s sole issue on | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Virginiared1 sentence2005Our standard of review when the defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see Tenn. R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sparksgreen1 sentence2004A reviewing court applying the reasonableness standard should consider all the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the state in determining whether the jury appropriately rejected the insanity defense. [[Image here]] The weight and value to be given expert testimony is a question for the jury. [State v. Sparks, 891 S.W.2d 607, 616 (Tenn.1995) ]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nunleygreen1 sentence2003See State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282, 289 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Demosgreen1 sentence2000App. Div. 1988) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to cross-examine the victim about prior accusations of rape when no basis for believing those accusations to be false existed); State v. Demos, 619 P.2d 968, 970 (Wash. 1980) (declining to reach issue of whether rape shield statute barred attack on the victim’s credibility based upon two arguably false prior rape accusations because the defendant’s failure to prove that the evidence was false rendered it irrelevant). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lippertgreen1 sentence2000R. 608(b), which prohibits impeachment of a witness’s credibility by inquiry into specific instances of conduct or proof by extrinsic evidence); People v. Lippert, 525 N.Y.S.2d 390, 391 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Grady v. Bryantgreen1 sentence1991Holmes v. Wilson, 551 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn.1977); Grady v. Bryant, 506 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1991Holmes v. Wilson, 551 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn.1977); Grady v. Bryant, 506 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1973). | 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. Flake
green
2 sentences2022Nevertheless, “defense proof can be countered by contrary expert testimony, lay witnesses, or vigorous cross-examination designed to undermine the credibility of the defense expert.” Id. 2018The State may counter the defendant’s proof “by contrary expert testimony, lay witnesses, or vigorous cross-examination designed to undermine the credibility of the defense expert.” Id. | 8 | 2003–2022 |
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.