13 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1927–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp.green2 sentences2017“Whether a jury has been properly instructed and whether an error in instruction more probably than not affected the jury’s verdict are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tenn.2007). 2016“Whether a jury has been properly instructed and whether an error in instruction more probably than not affected the jury‟s verdict are questions of law that are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness.” Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tenn. 2007). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2013White, 362 S.W.3d at 580, n.20 ; Theotus Barnett, 2013 WL 2297128 , at *10. | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2011See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 582 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Whaley v. Perkinsgreen1 sentence2007See Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 672 (Tenn.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Fye v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2000See Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815, 824 (Tenn. 1997); Fye v. Kennedy, 991 S.W.2d 754, 761 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). 30 . | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Allengreen1 sentence2000See Souter v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994) (concluding that failure to give comparative fault instructions was harmless where the jury determined that the defendant had not been negligent); Helms v. Weaver, 770 S.W.2d at 553 (including an instruction based on an inapplicable statutory rule of the road was harmless because it was "difficult to envision that a juxy would consider the statute in any way applicable”); Cardwell v. Golden, 621 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981) (holding that refusing to change remote contributory negligence was harml | 1 | 1 |
Cardwell v. Goldengreen1 sentence2000See Souter v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994) (concluding that failure to give comparative fault instructions was harmless where the jury determined that the defendant had not been negligent); Helms v. Weaver, 770 S.W.2d at 553 (including an instruction based on an inapplicable statutory rule of the road was harmless because it was "difficult to envision that a juxy would consider the statute in any way applicable”); Cardwell v. Golden, 621 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981) (holding that refusing to change remote contributory negligence was harml | 1 | 1 |
Souter v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Souter v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994) (concluding that failure to give comparative fault instructions was harmless where the jury determined that the defendant had not been negligent); Helms v. Weaver, 770 S.W.2d at 553 (including an instruction based on an inapplicable statutory rule of the road was harmless because it was "difficult to envision that a juxy would consider the statute in any way applicable”); Cardwell v. Golden, 621 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981) (holding that refusing to change remote contributory negligence was harml | 1 | 1 |
Helms v. Weavergreen1 sentence2000See Souter v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 895 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994) (concluding that failure to give comparative fault instructions was harmless where the jury determined that the defendant had not been negligent); Helms v. Weaver, 770 S.W.2d at 553 (including an instruction based on an inapplicable statutory rule of the road was harmless because it was "difficult to envision that a juxy would consider the statute in any way applicable”); Cardwell v. Golden, 621 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981) (holding that refusing to change remote contributory negligence was harml | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Jordangreen1 sentence2000See Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815, 824 (Tenn. 1997); Fye v. Kennedy, 991 S.W.2d 754, 761 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). 30 . | 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. Ely
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001), our supreme court stated that after we determine whether the complained of offenses are actually lesser-included offenses, we are then required to determine whether failure to instruct on these offenses is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. 2005In State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001), our supreme court stated that after we determine whether the complained of offenses are actually lesser-included offenses, we are then required to determine whether failure to instruct on these offenses is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bolin
green
1 sentence1992Id. at 45 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Frierson v. Galbraith
green
1 sentence1960In the Morgan case, the language which the court found to be reversible error was as follows [ 132 Tenn. 1 , 175 S. W. 1153 ]: *349 “If a witness be shown to have sworn willfully, falsely, and corruptly in one material respect, yon will reject Ms testimony altogether, except in so far as it is corroborated by other credible evidence.” In the case at bar, the language used and which is assigned as error is as follows: “When it appears that a witness has thus falsely testified, yon will disregard his or her evidence entirely except for such portions which are corroborated by other reliable and c | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Tennessee Central Railroad v. Morgan
neutral
1 sentence1960In the Morgan case, the language which the court found to be reversible error was as follows [ 132 Tenn. 1 , 175 S. W. 1153 ]: *349 “If a witness be shown to have sworn willfully, falsely, and corruptly in one material respect, yon will reject Ms testimony altogether, except in so far as it is corroborated by other credible evidence.” In the case at bar, the language used and which is assigned as error is as follows: “When it appears that a witness has thus falsely testified, yon will disregard his or her evidence entirely except for such portions which are corroborated by other reliable and c | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Hayes v. State
neutral
1 sentence1927The error in this instruction, in so far as the presentment was predicated upon Chapter 12 of the Public Acts of 1917, -defining the offense, is demonstrated in the opinion of this court in Hayes v. State, 145 Tenn., 629 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Sanders v. State
green
1 sentence1927The Act of 1917 was amended by Chapter 22 of the Public Acts of 1925, construed and upheld as to its constitutionality in Sanders v. State, 153 Tenn., 139 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.