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.
12 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2010 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. Wrightgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., State v. Wright, 618 S.W.2d 310, 313-14 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (finding that the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of murder in the first degree). 2004See, e.g., State v. Wright, 618 S.W.2d 310, 313-14 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (finding that the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of murder in the first degree). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Johnson City v. Outdoor West, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The standard for an appellate court's review of a trial judge's jury charge was stated in City of Johnson City v. Outdoor West, Inc., 947 S.W.2d 855 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996): We review the jury charge in its entirety to determine whether the trial judge committed reversible error. 2003The standard for an appellate court’s review of a trial judge’s jury charge was stated in City of Johnson City v. Outdoor West, Inc., 947 S.W.2d 855 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996): We review the jury charge in its entirety to determine whether the trial judge committed reversible error. | 4 | 1998–2005 |
Miller v. Choo Choo Partners, L.P.
green
1 sentence2010He maintains that T.P.I. 9.06 consists “of two paragraphs that [are] literally independent in thought and effect.” “We review the jury charge in its entirety and as a whole to determine whether the trial judge committed reversible error.” Miller, 73 S.W.3d at 908 (citing Otis v. Cambridge Mut. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wiseman v. Spaulding
green
1 sentence2004Wiseman v. Spaulding, 573 S.W.2d at 493 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company v. Vines
green
1 sentence1986Defendant says, first, that this Court held in Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co. v. Vines, 498 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn.1973) that T.R.C.P. 52.01 did not apply to worker’s compensation cases and, second, even if the rule did apply the request was not timely filed. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Leighton v. Henderson
green
2 sentences1986Id. 414 S.W.2d at 420-421 . 1986Id. 414 S.W.2d at 420-421 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kersey v. State
green
1 sentence1984They insist that the Trial Judge committed reversible error when he improperly gave a “dynamite charge” to the jury in violation of the rule set forth in Vanderbilt University v. Steely, 566 S.W.2d 853 (Tenn.1978), and Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn.1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Vanderbilt University v. Steely
green
1 sentence1984They insist that the Trial Judge committed reversible error when he improperly gave a “dynamite charge” to the jury in violation of the rule set forth in Vanderbilt University v. Steely, 566 S.W.2d 853 (Tenn.1978), and Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn.1975). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Jones v. State
neutral
2 sentences1972Jones v. State, 128 Tenn. 493 , 161 S.W. 1016 . 1972Jones v. State, 128 Tenn. 493 , 161 S.W. 1016 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Dykes v. State
green
2 sentences1960We think this contention must be sustained, upon the authority of Dykes v. State, 201 Tenn. 65, 67 , 296 S.W.2d 861, 862 , in which we held erroneous an instruction which we think is the same in substance as the one here complained of and which was as follows: “ ‘You, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the sole judges of the evidence and the weight to be given to the swearing of each and every witness in the case, but the law you will take as given you by the Court.” In that case, Mr. Justice Burnett fully reviewed the cases on the question and we could not add anything to what was there said. 1960We think this contention must be sustained, upon the authority of Dykes v. State, 201 Tenn. 65, 67 , 296 S.W.2d 861, 862 , in which we held erroneous an instruction which we think is the same in substance as the one here complained of and which was as follows: “ ‘You, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the sole judges of the evidence and the weight to be given to the swearing of each and every witness in the case, but the law you will take as given you by the Court.” In that case, Mr. Justice Burnett fully reviewed the cases on the question and we could not add anything to what was there said. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.