10 Tennessee opinions name it 4 courts 1986–2024 4 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. Adkissongreen2 sentences2024We may consider an issue to be plain error when all five of the following factors are met: (a) the record must clearly establish what occurred in the trial court; (b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; (c) a substantial right of the accused must have been adversely affected; (d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and (e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn. Crim. 2024Plain error relief is “limited to errors that had an unfair prejudicial impact which undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial.” State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 642 (Tenn. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jordangreen1 sentence2024Because it is “incumbent upon defense counsel to object contemporaneously whenever it deems the prosecution to be making improper argument[,]” as “[a] contemporaneous objection provides the trial court with an opportunity to assess the State’s argument and to caution the prosecution and issue a curative instruction to the jury if necessary.” State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 57-58 (Tenn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Nance v. State Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2017In Scarbrough, the Appeals Board held that the employer must prove the following factors to bar an employee from benefits based on the willful misconduct defense: (1) the employee's actual, as opposed to constructive, notice of the violated rule, (2) the employee's understanding of the dangers involved in violating the rule, (3) the employer's bona fide enforcement of the rule, and (4) the employee's lack of a valid excuse for violating the rule. 3 The parties stipulated the accuracy of the Wage Statement completed by the Bakery, which established that Mr. Resto's average weekly wage was $781. | 1 | 1 |
Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilitiesgreen1 sentence2017App. Bd. LEXIS 9, at *12-14 (Apr. 20, 2015), which applied the misconduct test in Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities, 368 S. W.3d 442, 453 (Tenn. 2012), in a new-law claim. | 1 | 1 |
Spruill v. C. W. Wright Construction Co.green2 sentences2012Wright Construction Co., 8 Va.App. 380 , 381 S.E.2d 359, 360-61 (1989), a Virginia court, while recognizing the misconduct defense, ruled that a lineman had a valid excuse for his failure to wear protective gloves and granted recovery. 2012Wright Construction Co., 381 S.E.2d 359, 360-61 (Va. Ct. App. 1989), a Virginia court, while recognizing the misconduct defense, ruled that a lineman had a valid excuse for his failure to wear protective gloves and granted recovery. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck
green
2 sentences2005This Court has employed the following definition of “misconduct” originally articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Other panels of this Court, heeding the Tennessee Supreme Court’s direction to develop the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (a)(2)(B) on a case by case basis, have adopted the misconduct standard contained in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249 , 296 N.W. 636 (1941). 2005This Court has employed the following definition of “misconduct” originally articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Other panels of this Court, heeding the Tennessee Supreme Court’s direction to develop the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (a)(2)(B) on a case by case basis, have adopted the misconduct standard contained in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249 , 296 N.W. 636 (1941). | 2 | 1986–2005 |
Tidewater Psychiatric Institute, Inc. v. Buttery
green
1 sentence2012Wright Construction Co., 8 Va.App. 380 , 381 S.E.2d 359, 360-61 (1989), a Virginia court, while recognizing the misconduct defense, ruled that a lineman had a valid excuse for his failure to wear protective gloves and granted recovery. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Sandin v. Conner
green
1 sentence2002The court ruled that “the regimen to which petitioner was subjected as a result of the misconduct hearing was within the range of confinement to be normally expected.” Relying on Sandin v. Conner, 512 U.S. 472 , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), the trial court determined Mr. Tankesly had no protected liberty interest and, therefore, his due process claims must be dismissed. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Bryant
green
1 sentence1997App., at Nashville, Nov. 7 1989), app. granted and aff'd on unrelated issue, State v. Bryant, 805 S.W.2d 762 (Tenn. 1991) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.