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.
14 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1871–2012 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. Vasquesgreen2 sentences2012The firmly-established standard governing our review requires that “‘[w]hen considering a sufficiency of the evidence question on appeal, the State must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 274 (quoting State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn. 2007)). 2012The firmly-established standard governing our review requires that “ ‘[w]hen considering a sufficiency of the evidence question on appeal, the State must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 274 (quoting State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn.2007)). | 2 | 2 |
Pairamore v. Pairamoregreen1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.green1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. Stategreen1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wardgreen1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Causbygreen1 sentence2002See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539 (1980); Causby, 706 S.W.2d at 631 (former testimony hearsay exception is such a firmly established rule and so inherently reliable that any such evidence necessarily comports with the right of confrontation). | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2002See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539 (1980); Causby, 706 S.W.2d at 631 (former testimony hearsay exception is such a firmly established rule and so inherently reliable that any such evidence necessarily comports with the right of confrontation). 2002See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539 (1980); Causby, 706 S.W.2d at 631 (former testimony hearsay exception is such a firmly established rule and so inherently reliable that any such evidence necessarily comports with the right of confrontation). | 1 | 1 |
Crane & Co. v. Hallgreen1 sentence1995See Crane & Co. v. Hall, 141 Tenn. 556 , 213 S.W. 414 (1919); McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218 , 186 S.W. 95 (1916). | 1 | 1 |
Leech v. Wayne Countygreen2 sentences1992Leech v. Wayne County, 588 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn.1979). 1992Leech v. Wayne County, 588 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Kilgore v. Stategreen1 sentence1982Kilgore v. State, 588 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979), cited with approval in State v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 529, 534-535 (Tenn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Travisgreen1 sentence1982Kilgore v. State, 588 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979), cited with approval in State v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 529, 534-535 (Tenn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth
green
2 sentences1871Jur., § 362; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat, 229; Hord’s lessee v. Longworth, 11 Wheat., 199 ; Nicholas vs. 1871Jur., § 362; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat, 229; Hord’s lessee v. Longworth, 11 Wheat., 199 ; Nicholas vs. | 3 | 1871–1871 |
State v. Hanson
green
2 sentences2012The firmly-established standard governing our review requires that “‘[w]hen considering a sufficiency of the evidence question on appeal, the State must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 274 (quoting State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn. 2007)). 2012The firmly-established standard governing our review requires that “ ‘[w]hen considering a sufficiency of the evidence question on appeal, the State must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’” Hanson, 279 S.W.3d at 274 (quoting State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn.2007)). | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Reed v. Rhea County
green
1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith
green
1 sentence2005In a concurring opinion authored by Justice Brock of the Tennessee Supreme Court he stated: “But it is my view that such opinion should be limited to a statement of the reasons for refusal to take jurisdiction of the merits of the case; anything more is dictum and amounts to an advisory opinion which we are not authorized to give.” Pairamore v. Pairamore, 547 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tenn. 1977) (Brock, J., concurring) (citing Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, 76 S.W.2d 644 (Tenn. 1934); Reed v. Rhea County, 225 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. 1949)); see also Nichols v. State, 90 S.W.3d 576, 607 (Tenn. 2002); State v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lavon v. State
green
2 sentences2002The majority, in this 3-2 decision, held that “the question of the propriety of successive state and federal prosecutions for the same act, being essentially one of policy, is ‘committed to the intelligence and discretion’ of the legislature and we leave it to their considered judgment.” Id. at 115 (quoting Rush v. Great American Ins. 2002Despite an expression of "grave doubts as to the inherent fairness of any procedure that forces an individual to defend himself against multiple prosecutions for the same crime," our high court expressed "even graver doubts as to the propriety of . . . abandoning such a firmly established rule of law, absent compelling circumstances." Id. at 114 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McCormick v. State
green
1 sentence1995See Crane & Co. v. Hall, 141 Tenn. 556 , 213 S.W. 414 (1919); McCormick v. State, 135 Tenn. 218 , 186 S.W. 95 (1916). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McClain v. State
green
1 sentence1975Owens v. State, 202 Tenn. 679 , 308 S.W.2d 423 ; McClain v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 499, 445 S.W.2d 942 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Owens v. State
green
2 sentences1975Owens v. State, 202 Tenn. 679 , 308 S.W.2d 423 ; McClain v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 499, 445 S.W.2d 942 . 1975Owens v. State, 202 Tenn. 679 , 308 S.W.2d 423 ; McClain v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 499, 445 S.W.2d 942 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Bratton v. State
green
1 sentence1975Tooley v. State, supra; Bratton v. State, 477 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn.Cr.App.1971). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Shepard v. Henderson
green
2 sentences1970In Shepard v. Henderson, Tenn.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 726 , we reiterated the firmly established rule of law that a plea of guilty, understandingly and voluntarily entered on the advice of counsel, constitutes an admission of all facts alleged and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional and procedural defects and constitutional infirmities, if any, in any prior stage of the proceeding. 1970In Shepard v. Henderson, Tenn.Cr.App., 449 S.W.2d 726 , we reiterated the firmly established rule of law that a plea of guilty, understandingly and voluntarily entered on the advice of counsel, constitutes an admission of all facts alleged and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional and procedural defects and constitutional infirmities, if any, in any prior stage of the proceeding. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.