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.
11 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1930–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Buckspangreen1 sentence2009In 1998, this court reaffirmed that requirement in Harris v. Buckspan, 984 S.W.2d 944, 949 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Statengreen2 sentences2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted *39 that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were "the same in substance." This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers' Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase "Law of the Land" is synonymous with "due process of law." See, e.g., State v. 2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were “the same in substance.” This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers’ Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase “Law of the Land” is synonymous with “due process of law.” See, e.g., State v. Sta | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Miners' & Manufacturers' Bankgreen2 sentences2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted *39 that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were "the same in substance." This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers' Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase "Law of the Land" is synonymous with "due process of law." See, e.g., State v. 2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were “the same in substance.” This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers’ Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase “Law of the Land” is synonymous with “due process of law.” See, e.g., State v. Sta | 1 | 1 |
Bunch v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Bunch v. State, 605 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn.1980) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garvey v. State
green
1 sentence2010Of note, this court reaffirmed the standard first enunciated in Garvey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 709 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Shelburne v. Frontier Health
green
1 sentence2007In Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003), the Court reaffirmed this principle by holding that a private healthcare provider could be held liable for the acts of its agent, a state-employed social worker, even if that agent was individually immune from suit. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gentry v. Gentry
green
1 sentence2003The Court reaffirmed the standard for determining whether a judgment is void: whether the court had general jurisdiction of the subject matter, whether the judgment was wholly outside the pleadings, and whether the court had jurisdiction of the parties. 924 S.W.2d at 680-81 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Rickman
green
1 sentence2000OFFICER MORTON: Yes, Sir.” 2 See State v. Rickman, 876 S.W.2d 824 (Tenn. 1994) wherein the Court reaffirmed the rule admitting evidence of other sex crimes when an indictment is not time specific and when the evidence relates to sex crimes that allegedly occurred during the time as charged in the indictment. 3 At the time of the crime, the victim believed that the defendant was her father. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Owens and Others v. Rain's Lessee
green
2 sentences2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted *39 that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were "the same in substance." This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers' Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase "Law of the Land" is synonymous with "due process of law." See, e.g., State v. 2000In answering the question in the affirmative under Tennessee law, this Court noted that the federal due process protections and those contained in Article I, section 8 were “the same in substance.” This Court reaffirmed this principle again in Ferguson v. Miners & Manufacturers’ Bank, 35 Tenn. (3 Sneed) 609, 616 (1856), when it stated that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 8 provided the same due process protections, and our case law is also replete with statements from this Court saying that the phrase “Law of the Land” is synonymous with “due process of law.” See, e.g., State v. Sta | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Grissom v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville
green
1 sentence1996In Grissom, the court reaffirmed the rule that only parties who have moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the proof may seek a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 817 S.W.2d at 683 ; see T.R.C.P. 50.02. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bennett v. Stutts
green
2 sentences1981In Bennett v. Stutts, supra , the court reaffirmed the rule prohibiting private citizens from commencing a quo warranto action to rectify a public wrong. 1981In Bennett v. Stutts, supra, the court reaffirmed the rule prohibiting private citizens from commencing a quo warranto action to rectify a public wrong. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Little
green
1 sentence1979In the recent case of State v. Little, 560 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn.1978), this Court reaffirmed the principle that the issuing official may pass upon motions to suppress or other questions concerning the validity of the warrant. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ewell v. Sneed
neutral
2 sentences1930In Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn., 602 , this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Green v. Allen, 24 Tenn., 170 , and subsequent decisions, to the effect that charitable bequests of the character here involved are invalid unless supported by trustees. 1930In Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn. 602 , this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Green v. Allen, 24 Tenn. 170 , and subsequent decisions, to the effect that charitable bequests of the character here involved are invalid unless supported by trustees. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Green v. Allen
green
2 sentences1930In Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn., 602 , this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Green v. Allen, 24 Tenn., 170 , and subsequent decisions, to the effect that charitable bequests of the character here involved are invalid unless supported by trustees. 1930In Ewell v. Sneed, 136 Tenn. 602 , this court reaffirmed the rule announced in Green v. Allen, 24 Tenn. 170 , and subsequent decisions, to the effect that charitable bequests of the character here involved are invalid unless supported by trustees. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.