11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1929–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sands v. Stategreen2 sentences2018After citing the factors in Sands, 903 S.W.2d at 300 , for determining whether due process tolling applies, the post-conviction court acknowledged that “due process may require tolling when circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control preclude raising the post-conviction claims.” The court noted that “there [was] the allegation of inaccurate or at least deficient advice of counsel.” It then held that the petition was not time-barred because “a strict application of the limitations period would deny the petitioner an opportunity to present the claim[.]” As to the Petitioner’s ineffective assis 1997See Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (petitioner who did not have access to law library while incarcerated in Florida failed to show he did not have an opportunity to present his claim where it was not based on "later arising ground"); Paul R. | 2 | 3 |
Burford v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 , 623 -5- (Tenn. 2013); Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Tenn. 1992)). 2013Our supreme court has held that the one year statute of limitations must be tolled in the limited situations when due process requires such when a petitioner has been denied the opportunity to present a claim “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Tenn. 1992). | 2 | 2 |
McCullough v. Johnson City Emergency Physicians, P.C.green1 sentence2023See McCullough, 106 S.W.3d at 48 . | 1 | 1 |
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennesseegreen1 sentence2017Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 , 623 -5- (Tenn. 2013); Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Tenn. 1992)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2015See State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tenn. 2000) (“The Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly guarantee a criminal defendant the right to present a defense which includes the right to present witnesses favorable to the defense.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
John Paul Seals v. State of Tennessee
green
2 sentences2013Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 277 . 2012Determining whether due process requires an opportunity to present a claim involves considering “(1) the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if 2 We note that this filing likewise falls outside the statutory limitations period. -4- any, of additional or substitute safeguards; and finally, (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 277 . | 3 | 2012–2013 |
Artis Whitehead v. State of Tennessee
green
1 sentence2017Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 , 623 -5- (Tenn. 2013); Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Tenn. 1992)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Montana v. Egelhoff
green
1 sentence2000The majority, however, fails to recognize the limited application of Chambers articulated in subsequent Supreme Court decisions. 8 In Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996), a plurality of the Court noted the limited application of Chambers by stating: the holding of Chambers–if one can be discerned from such a fact- intensive case–is certainly not that a defendant is denied “a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations” whenever “critical evidence” favorable to him is excluded, but rather that erroneous evidentiary rulings can, in combination, rise to a level of a due process | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Slocovitch v. State
neutral
1 sentence1929Slocovitch v. State, 46 Ala., 227 ; Lawn v. People, 11 Colo., 343 ; State v. Young, 86 Iowa, 406 ; State v. Garland, 67 Me., 423; State v. Campbell, 42 W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Lawn v. People
neutral
1 sentence1929Slocovitch v. State, 46 Ala., 227 ; Lawn v. People, 11 Colo., 343 ; State v. Young, 86 Iowa, 406 ; State v. Garland, 67 Me., 423; State v. Campbell, 42 W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
State v. Campbell
neutral
1 sentence1929Slocovitch v. State, 46 Ala., 227 ; Lawn v. People, 11 Colo., 343 ; State v. Young, 86 Iowa, 406 ; State v. Garland, 67 Me., 423; State v. Campbell, 42 W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
State v. Young
neutral
1 sentence1929Slocovitch v. State, 46 Ala., 227 ; Lawn v. People, 11 Colo., 343 ; State v. Young, 86 Iowa, 406 ; State v. Garland, 67 Me., 423; State v. Campbell, 42 W. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.