10 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1925–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence2025See id. at 327 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Terrygreen1 sentence2020Upon our review of the assigned error by the Defendant, we observe that in State v. Terry, 813 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Tenn. 1991), the defendant, a church pastor, embezzled substantial sums of money from his congregation over a period of time beginning in March of 1987. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carl H. Hill v. United States
green
2 sentences1971In McClain we quoted Hill v. United States, 363 F.2d 176 (5 Cir. 1966): “We reject this assigned error for a second and entirely different reason. 1969In Hill v. United States, 363 F.2d 176 (5 Cir. 1966) the Court stated: “We reject this assigned error for a second and entirely different reason. | 3 | 1969–1971 |
Graham v. State
green
1 sentence1978Graham v. State, supra. The trial judge refused an oral request to charge the jury concerning the civil commitment laws of Tennessee pertaining to persons adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, and this is assigned as error. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Langford Ex Rel. Langford v. Vanderbilt University
green
2 sentences1967In Langford v. Vanderbilt University, 199 Tenn. 389, 401 , 287 S.W.2d 32 (1956), this Court, assuming the existence of the common law right of action for invasion of privacy held it had been waived or relinquished. 1967In Langford v. Vanderbilt University, 199 Tenn. 389, 401 , 287 S.W.2d 32 (1956), this Court, assuming the existence of the common law right of action for invasion of privacy held it had been waived or relinquished. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State v. Green
neutral
2 sentences1950In doing this the Court observed that: “If the trial judge had fixed the fine at the minimum of $100 prescribed by the statute, State v. Green, 129 Tenn. 619 , 167 S. W. 867 , holding the error not reversible, might have been in point, although such a practice, involving a violation of a constitutional provision is not approved.” During that same term of this Court in Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S. W. 462, 464 , this Court reversed and remanded because the trial judge assessed a fine of $100.00 -which was the minimum at which it could have been fixed by the jury, and said: “We canno 1950In doing this the Court observed that: “If the trial judge had fixed the fine at the minimum of $100 prescribed by the statute, State v. Green, 129 Tenn. 619 , 167 S. W. 867 , holding the error not reversible, might have been in point, although such a practice, involving a violation of a constitutional provision is not approved.” During that same term of this Court in Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S. W. 462, 464 , this Court reversed and remanded because the trial judge assessed a fine of $100.00 -which was the minimum at which it could have been fixed by the jury, and said: “We canno | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Upchurch v. State
green
2 sentences1950In doing this the Court observed that: “If the trial judge had fixed the fine at the minimum of $100 prescribed by the statute, State v. Green, 129 Tenn. 619 , 167 S. W. 867 , holding the error not reversible, might have been in point, although such a practice, involving a violation of a constitutional provision is not approved.” During that same term of this Court in Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S. W. 462, 464 , this Court reversed and remanded because the trial judge assessed a fine of $100.00 -which was the minimum at which it could have been fixed by the jury, and said: “We canno 1950In doing this the Court observed that: “If the trial judge had fixed the fine at the minimum of $100 prescribed by the statute, State v. Green, 129 Tenn. 619 , 167 S. W. 867 , holding the error not reversible, might have been in point, although such a practice, involving a violation of a constitutional provision is not approved.” During that same term of this Court in Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198 , 281 S. W. 462, 464 , this Court reversed and remanded because the trial judge assessed a fine of $100.00 -which was the minimum at which it could have been fixed by the jury, and said: “We canno | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Roy v. Sanford
neutral
1 sentence1934As in the assignment considered in Roy v. Sanford, 140 Tenn., 382 , 204 S. W., 1159 , the only possible inference is that such of the proceeds as are to be retained by the agency are merely as compensation for its services in making the collection. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Den v. Mayfield
neutral
1 sentence1925F. Gentry to his wife Mary F. Gentry was void', as against the claims of the husband's creditors and without consideration. “(2) The Chancellor erred in holding that the conveyance was void and ordering the, property sold by reason of the fact that a period of four months had elapsed from the date of said conveyance until the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.” In support of the first assignment of error it is urged upon ns that defendants both testified that the property involved was purchased with money furnished by Mary F. Gentry, and the following authorities are cited: Pillow v. Thomas | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.