12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crittenden v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tenn. 1998); Burrow, 769 S.W.2d at 511 ; State v. Dodson, 780 S.W.2d 778 , 780 n.14 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ricky L. Boren v. Hill Boren, PCgreen1 sentence2024Despite the timeliness requirement, “Tennessee law concerning appeals filed under Rule 10B gives this Court some discretion to waive certain procedural deficiencies in order to reach the merits of a motion filed under Rule 10B.” See Ueber v. Ueber, No. M2018- 02053-COA-T10B-CV, 2019 WL 410703 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019) (citing Bean, 280 S.W.3d at 803 and Boren v. Hill Boren, PC., 557 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) as examples of cases where this Court waived the timeliness requirement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nixgreen1 sentence2022The brief on appeal only asserts that despite the one-week span between appointment of the replacement post-conviction counsel and the timeliness hearing on the motion, post- conviction counsel “should have requested an evidentiary hearing to litigate the issue of statute of limitations or to request a stay of the [p]ost-[c]onviction [c]ourt’s ruling to allow [post-conviction c]ounsel greater time to become familiar with the circumstances of the case.” Our supreme court has stated that “it is incumbent upon a petitioner to include allegations of fact in the petition establishing either timely | 1 | 1 |
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLCgreen1 sentence2020Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim.9 See Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 413 (stating dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41.02 when “the plaintiff fail[s] to demonstrate a right to the relief sought”); Brown, 328 S.W.3d at 856 (stating a plaintiff bears the burden of proving a statute provides a private right of action). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Moodygreen1 sentence2020See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (k) (2017) (stating the trial court shall enter its “findings of fact and conclusions of law within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing”); White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 191-92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that even if a trial court fails to comply with the timeliness requirement of subsection (k), the case may proceed on appeal if remanding it to the trial court would not promote the just and speedy resolution of the case). -2- found that the parents willfully failed “to manifest a meaningful relationship with [Ayanna].” Further, the court found | 1 | 1 |
In Re Angela E.green1 sentence2020The purpose of the timeliness requirement is to “facilitate appellate review and promote just and speedy resolution of appeals.” In re Adoption of Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 251 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 ). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.green1 sentence2020Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim.9 See Shore, 411 S.W.3d at 413 (stating dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41.02 when “the plaintiff fail[s] to demonstrate a right to the relief sought”); Brown, 328 S.W.3d at 856 (stating a plaintiff bears the burden of proving a statute provides a private right of action). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Taylor, 968 S.W.2d 900, 905 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rockwellgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2018In Williams, our supreme court stated that the “filing [of] an untimely application for permission to appeal to [the supreme court] does not constitute ‘an appeal’ . . . and therefore does not delay commencement of the one- year post-conviction statute of limitations.” 44 S.W.3d at 471 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Newsome v. Stategreen1 sentence2010In Newsome v. State, 995 S.W.2d 129, 133 (Tenn. Crim. | 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. Burrow
green
1 sentence2026See Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tenn. 1998); Burrow, 769 S.W.2d at 511 ; State v. Dodson, 780 S.W.2d 778 , 780 n.14 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Dodson
green
1 sentence2026See Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tenn. 1998); Burrow, 769 S.W.2d at 511 ; State v. Dodson, 780 S.W.2d 778 , 780 n.14 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Emory v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education
green
2 sentences2025Thompson, 395 S.W.3d at 619-20 . - 17 - However, in Emory, our Supreme Court held that a challenge to the timeliness of a hearing was “not properly before [it] because [the teacher] failed to raise her timeliness objection either before or during the Board hearing.” Emory, 514 S.W.3d at 153 . 2025The Court reviewed the record and determined that, “[the teacher] received a full and fair hearing” as it was evident that “[s]he was given ample opportunity to put on proof, present testimony from witnesses on her behalf, testify on her own behalf, cross-examine the Board’s witnesses, answer questions from Board members, and argue her view of significant events that were the basis for the charges.” Id. at 151 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Saundra Thompson v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education
green
1 sentence2025Thompson, 395 S.W.3d at 619-20 . - 17 - However, in Emory, our Supreme Court held that a challenge to the timeliness of a hearing was “not properly before [it] because [the teacher] failed to raise her timeliness objection either before or during the Board hearing.” Emory, 514 S.W.3d at 153 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bean v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2024Despite the timeliness requirement, “Tennessee law concerning appeals filed under Rule 10B gives this Court some discretion to waive certain procedural deficiencies in order to reach the merits of a motion filed under Rule 10B.” See Ueber v. Ueber, No. M2018- 02053-COA-T10B-CV, 2019 WL 410703 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019) (citing Bean, 280 S.W.3d at 803 and Boren v. Hill Boren, PC., 557 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) as examples of cases where this Court waived the timeliness requirement). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Audrey S.
green
2 sentences2020The purpose of the timeliness requirement is to “facilitate appellate review and promote just and speedy resolution of appeals.” In re Adoption of Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240, 251 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 ). 2020Section 36-1-113(k) evidences “the importance of permanently placing children and the just, speedy resolution of cases,” Id. at 251 n.14, and “the General Assembly’s mandate that parental termination cases be adjudicated as expeditiously as possible.” In re M.R.W., No. M2005-02329-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 1184010 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2006). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Chattem, Inc. v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2010The Court held that “[t]he defendant’s waiver of the time requirements in the original insurance policy has the same effect as if the requirement was not a condition precedent to recovery.” Id. at 956 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hickman v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.