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.
10 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freeman v. City of Kingsportgreen2 sentences2015See Garland v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 658 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tenn.1983) (recognizing that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to ensure that process is served in a manner reasonably calculated *274 to provide a defendant with adequate notice of pending judicial proceedings); Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247, 260 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) (holding that the.“diligent inquiry” language of Tennes: see Code Annotated section 21-1-203 essentially codifies the constitutional due process standard that “actual notice- is required if the interested party 2014In Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), the Court of Appeals determined that the “diligent inquiry” language of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 21-1-203 essentially codifies the constitutional due process standard that “actual notice is required if the interested party’s name and address are reasonably ascertainable.” Freeman, 926 S.W.2d at 250 . | 1 | 4 |
Garland v. Seaboard Coastline Railroadgreen1 sentence2015See Garland v. Seaboard Coastline R.R., 658 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tenn.1983) (recognizing that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to ensure that process is served in a manner reasonably calculated *274 to provide a defendant with adequate notice of pending judicial proceedings); Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247, 260 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996) (holding that the.“diligent inquiry” language of Tennes: see Code Annotated section 21-1-203 essentially codifies the constitutional due process standard that “actual notice- is required if the interested party | 1 | 1 |
State v. Townesgreen1 sentence2005Nonetheless, the Defendant failed to raise this issue “in [his] post-conviction petition” and therefore it “may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Townes, 56 S.W.3d 30, 35 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
green
2 sentences2021In Nunley, our supreme court held that “an error coram nobis proceeding is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining relief on the ground that the petitioner suffered a constitutional due process violation under Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)].” 552 S.W.3d at 806 . 2020The Nunley court held, in part, “that an error coram nobis proceeding is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining relief on the ground that the defendant suffered a constitutional due process violation under Brady.” Id. at 819 . | 4 | 2018–2021 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2021In Nunley, our supreme court held that “an error coram nobis proceeding is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining relief on the ground that the petitioner suffered a constitutional due process violation under Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)].” 552 S.W.3d at 806 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jordan v. State
green
1 sentence2013In denying petitioner relief in this case, the post-conviction court wrote in its order that the State’s failure to provide the defense with copies of petitioner’s video-recorded statements was improper but did “not rise to the level of a constitutional due process violation.” Analyzing the issue according to the four factors listed in Jordan, 343 S.W.3d at 96 , we first determine that the record clearly indicates that pre-trial counsel filed a motion for discovery. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.