79 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2011 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. Honeycuttgreen2 sentences2010Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762, 769 (Tenn. 2001). 2010Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762, 769 (Tenn. 2001). | 41 | 43 |
Alley v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Alley, 958 S.W.2d at 149 ; Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tenn. Crim. 2010Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Alley v. State, 958 S.W.2d 138, 149 (Tenn. Crim. 11 App. 1997 ); State v. Williams, 929 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Tenn. Crim. | 11 | 13 |
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2003Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 462 (Tenn. 1999). 2001Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 462 . | 7 | 9 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Alley, 958 S.W.2d at 149 ; Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tenn. Crim. 2002Hicks v. State, 983 S.W.2d 240, 246 (Tenn. Crim. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2010Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ; Alley v. State, 958 S.W.2d 138, 149 (Tenn. Crim. 11 App. 1997 ); State v. Williams, 929 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Tenn. Crim. 2010Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; State v. Williams, 929 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Tenn. Crim. | 6 | 6 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011In other words, the petitioner must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, counsel’s challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 2011In other words, the petitioner must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, counsel’s challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . | 3 | 74 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
David Ronald Chandler v. United States
green
1 sentence2005This presumption “is not some presumption that the particular defense lawyer in reality focused on and, then, deliberately decided to do or not to do a specific act,” but that “what the particular defense lawyer did at trial--for example, what witnesses he presented or did not present--were acts that some reasonable lawyer might do.” Chandler v. -5- United States, 218 F.3d 1305 , 1314 n.15 (11th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Autry v. Estelle
green
1 sentence1999Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 206 5; Alley v. State, 958 S.W .2d 138, 149 (Tenn. Crim . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.