15 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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. Keelgreen2 sentences2022See id. 2021See id. | 6 | 8 |
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. Marchgreen2 sentences2014Because Tennessee no longer adheres to a strict variance rule, “[g]enerally, unless the matters alleged in the indictment are essential elements of the crime, they may be disregarded in analyzing the sufficiency of the convicting evidence.” Id. at 589 . 2012The variance rule is related to the “surplusage rule.” State v. March, 293 S.W.3d 576, 588 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Coxgreen1 sentence2014State v. Cox, 644 S.W.2d 692, 695-96 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leachgreen1 sentence2012App. 2008) (considering the trial court’s use of a limiting instruction in determining the relationship of the probative value of the evidence against the claim of unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 404(b)(4)); see State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42, 48 (Tenn. 2004) (“The trial court properly (continued...) -16- Variance The defendant alleges that a variance exists between the facts alleged in counts three and five of the indictment and the evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Turnergreen1 sentence1997Turner v. Turner, 919 S.W.2d 340, 342-43 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Huddleston
green
2 sentences2009The statutory authority for imposing a variance requires that the standard formulas ‘not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state.” Id. at 692 . 2009The statutory authority for imposing a variance requires that the standard formulas ‘not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state.” Id. at 692 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Moss
green
1 sentence2001However, a careful reading of the opinion in Cox indicates that the court was drawing a distinction between those early Tennessee cases that followed a strict variance rule and later cases following a growing judicial trend toward greater objectivity, a trend culminating in the holding in State v. Moss, 662 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. 1984), which articulated the present standard applicable to variance issues, that is, the Berger standard. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1982Tennessee follows a stringent variance rule, and if a person or thing necessary to be mentioned in an indictment is described with greater particularity than is requisite, such person or thing must be proved exactly as described in the indictment.” Johnson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 97 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979); Martin v. State, 542 S.W.2d 638 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Martin v. State
green
1 sentence1982Tennessee follows a stringent variance rule, and if a person or thing necessary to be mentioned in an indictment is described with greater particularity than is requisite, such person or thing must be proved exactly as described in the indictment.” Johnson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 97 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979); Martin v. State, 542 S.W.2d 638 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.